title: Case T-726/18: Action brought on 7 December 2018 — Melin v Parliament

text:
               18.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/42

      Action brought on 7 December 2018 — Melin v Parliament
      (Case T-726/18)
      (2019/C 65/54)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Joëlle Melin (Aubagne, France) (represented by: F. Wagner, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Parliament

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the General Court should:

                  —

                  declare admissible the plea of illegality and, accordingly, find Articles 33 and 68 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament to be unlawful;

                  —

                  hold that the Decision of the Secretary General of 4 October 2018 lacks a valid legal basis;

            Principally:

                  —

                  annul the Decision of the Secretary General of the European Parliament dated 4 October 2018, notified by letter No D316037 dated 10 October 2018, taken pursuant to Article 68 of European Parliament Bureau Decision 2009/C 159/01 of 19 May and 9 July 2008‘concerning implementing measures for the Statute of Members of the European Parliament’ as amended, finding a debt on the part of the applicant amounting to EUR 130 339,35 in respect of amounts unduly paid in the context of parliamentary assistance and giving reasons for its recovery;

                  —

                  annul the debit note No 2018-1597, demanding that the applicant pay the sum due pursuant to the decision of the Secretary General of 4 October 2018, ‘recovery of sums unduly paid for parliamentary assistance, application of Article 68 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament and Articles 78-79 of the Financial Regulation’;

                  —

                  order the European Parliament to pay the entirety of the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, based on plea of illegality on the grounds of breach of the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations by Articles 33 and 68 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament adopted by European Parliament Bureau Decision 2009/C 159/01 of 19 May and 9 July 2008, on account in particular of their lack of clarity and precision.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging infringement of procedural requirements, in so far as the contested decision does not afford precise knowledge of the reasons for the refusal to admit the documents submitted as evidence of work done. Accordingly, the decision fails to state reasons, in breach of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, enshrining the right to good administration.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s rights, in so far as she has not been heard orally by the Secretary General, but solely through a written procedure.


title: Case T-738/18: Action brought on 11 December 2018 — Dragnea v Commission

text:
               18.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/43

      Action brought on 11 December 2018 — Dragnea v Commission
      (Case T-738/18)
      (2019/C 65/56)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Liviu Dragnea (Bucharest, Romania) (represented by: B. O’Connor, Solicitor and S. Gubel, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the Commission decision (OCM(2018)20575) sent to the legal representative of the applicant by letter dated 1 October 2018;

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging a breach of articles 9(1), 9(2) and 9(4) of the OLAF Regulation (1) and a violation of the rights of defence of the applicant in the investigations, including the right to be heard and the respect of the presumption of innocence.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging a breach of the principle of sound administration in relation to the investigations as well as the refusal to open an investigation on the conduct of the OLAF investigation.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the right of access to documents concerning the OLAF investigation.

         (1)  Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 September 2013 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Regulation (Euratom) No 1074/1999


title: Case T-743/18: Action brought on 18 December 2018 — Japan Tobacco v EUIPO — I.J. Tobacco Industry (I.J. TOBACCO INDUSTRY)

text:
               18.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/44

      Action brought on 18 December 2018 — Japan Tobacco v EUIPO — I.J. Tobacco Industry (I.J. TOBACCO INDUSTRY)
      (Case T-743/18)
      (2019/C 65/57)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Japan Tobacco, Inc. (Tokyo, Japon) (represented by: J. Gracia Albero, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: I.J. Tobacco Industry FZE (Ras Al Khaimah, United Arab Emirates)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

         Trade mark at issue: Application for European figurative mark in black and white I.J. TOBACCO INDUSTRY — Application for registration No 16 003 551

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 October 2018 in Case R 979/2018-4

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to bear the costs of the present proceedings, including the costs deriving from the proceedings before the Opposition Division and the Fourth Board of Appeal.

         Plea in law

                  —

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


title: Case T-744/18: Action brought on 20 December 2018 — Oakley v EUIPO — Xuebo Ye (Representation of a discontinuous ellipse)

text:
               18.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/45

      Action brought on 20 December 2018 — Oakley v EUIPO — Xuebo Ye (Representation of a discontinuous ellipse)
      (Case T-744/18)
      (2019/C 65/58)
      Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

         Parties

         Applicant: Oakley (Foothill Ranch, California, United States) (represented by: E. Ochoa Santamaría and I. Aparicio Martínez, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Xuebo Ye (Wenzhou, China)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

         Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark (Representation of a discontinuous ellipsis) — Application for registration No 13 088 191

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 October 2018 in Case R 692/2018-1

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  declare the application admissible, together with all the associated documents;

                  —

                  rule that the evidence offered may be submitted;

                  —

                  grant the application, annulling the contested decision;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law

      Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and Article 72(6) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.


title: Case T-753/18: Action brought on 26 December 2018 — C&A v EUIPO (#BESTDEAL)

text:
               18.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/46

      Action brought on 26 December 2018 — C&A v EUIPO (#BESTDEAL)
      (Case T-753/18)
      (2019/C 65/60)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: C&A AG (Zug, Switzerland) (represented by: P. Koch Moreno, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark #BESTDEAL in white — Application for registration No 17 681 826

         Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 October 2018 in Case R 1234/2018-2

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  declare the grounds of the action well-founded and annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay the costs should it appear in the present proceedings.

         Pleas in law

                  —

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

                  —

                  Infringement of the principle of legal certainty and equal treatment.


title: Case T-116/18: Order of the General Court of 12 December 2018 — Darmanin v EASO

text:
               18.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/47

      Order of the General Court of 12 December 2018 — Darmanin v EASO
      (Case T-116/18) (1)

      (2019/C 65/61)
      Language of the case: French
      The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 152, 30.4.2018.


title: Case T-520/18: Order of the General Court of 14 December 2018 — BGC Partners v EUIPO — Bankgirocentralen BGC (BGC PARTNERS)

text:
               18.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/47

      Order of the General Court of 14 December 2018 — BGC Partners v EUIPO — Bankgirocentralen BGC (BGC PARTNERS)
      (Case T-520/18) (1)

      (2019/C 65/63)
      Language of the case: English
      The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 392, 29.10.2018.


title: Case T-522/18: Order of the General Court of 14 December 2018 — BGC Partners v EUIPO — Bankgirocentralen BGC (AUREL BGC)

text:
               18.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/48

      Order of the General Court of 14 December 2018 — BGC Partners v EUIPO — Bankgirocentralen BGC (AUREL BGC)
      (Case T-522/18) (1)

      (2019/C 65/65)
      Language of the case: English
      The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 392, 29.10.2018.


title: Case T-523/18: Order of the General Court of 14 December 2018 — BGC Partners v EUIPO — Bankgirocentralen BGC (BGCPRO)

text:
               18.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/48

      Order of the General Court of 14 December 2018 — BGC Partners v EUIPO — Bankgirocentralen BGC (BGCPRO)
      (Case T-523/18) (1)

      (2019/C 65/66)
      Language of the case: English
      The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 392, 29.10.2018.


title: Case T-336/17: Judgment of the General Court of 29 January 2019 — The GB Foods v EUIPO — Yatecomeré (YATEKOMO) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark YATEKOMO — National figurative mark yatecomeré — Admissibility of new information seeking to substantiate the accuracy of a well-known fact — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

text:
               18.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/28

      Judgment of the General Court of 29 January 2019 — The GB Foods v EUIPO — Yatecomeré (YATEKOMO)
      (Case T-336/17) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark YATEKOMO - National figurative mark yatecomeré - Admissibility of new information seeking to substantiate the accuracy of a well-known fact - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
      (2019/C 103/36)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Applicant: The GB Foods, SA (L’Hospitalet de Llobregat, Spain) (represented by: C. Buganza González and E. Torner Lasalle, lawyers)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Yatecomeré, SL (Ribadumia, Spain) (represented by: J.C. Erdozain López, V. Arnaiz Medina and L. Montoya Terán, lawyers)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 March 2017 (Case R 1506/2016-5) relating to invalidity proceedings between Yatecomeré and The GB Foods.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders The GB Foods, SA to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 318, 25.9.2017.


title: Case T-129/19: Action brought on 25 February 2019 — Necci v Commission

text:
               6.5.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/45

      Action brought on 25 February 2019 — Necci v Commission
      (Case T-129/19)
      (2019/C 155/54)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Claudio Necci (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the decision of 18 April 2018 rejecting his application for membership of the JSIS;

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of the action, the applicant relies on one main plea in law and one alternative plea in law.
      Primarily, he claims that the European Commission infringed Article 95 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants (‘the CEOS’) by refusing to admit him as a member of the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme (JSIS), without taking into account the additional contribution period granted to him in the pension scheme of the institutions of the Union in consideration for the transfer of his national pension rights.
      In the alternative, the applicant raises an objection of illegality in respect of Article 95 of the CEOS having regard to Article 45 of the TFEU.


title: Case T-153/19: Action brought on 11 March 2019 — European Union Copper Task Force v Commission

text:
               6.5.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/51

      Action brought on 11 March 2019 — European Union Copper Task Force v Commission
      (Case T-153/19)
      (2019/C 155/60)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: European Union Copper Task Force (Essex, United Kingdom) (represented by: I. Moreno-Tapia Rivas and C. Vila Gisbert, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2018/1981, (1) to the extent that it renews the approval of copper compounds as a candidate for substitution on an unlawful legal basis;

                  —

                  extend the effects of the annulment to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2015/408, (2) insofar as it implemented Article 80(7) of Regulation 1107/2009 and included copper compounds in the list of active substances as candidates for substitution;

                  —

                  declare that Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2018/1981 has infringed the principle of proportionality;

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging that Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1981 renews the approval of copper compounds as a candidate for substitution on an unlawful legal basis. In particular:

                              —

                              Articles 24 and Annex II, point 4, of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 (3) infringe EU law because:

                                          (i)

                                          Scientific evidence indicates that ‘PBT criteria’, in particular persistence, are not appropriate for copper.

                                          (ii)

                                          Application of PBT criteria to inorganic substances is not consistent with other pieces of legislation that have been implemented in the field of regulated chemical substances.

                                          (iii)

                                          As far as candidates for substitution are concerned, the application of PBT criteria to copper compounds goes beyond what is necessary to achieve the objectives pursued by Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009. In addition, Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 misinterprets the precautionary principle.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging the illegality of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2015/408 in relation to the qualification of copper compounds as candidates for substitution.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging, as a subsidiary plea, that Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1981 has infringed the principle of proportionality.

         (1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1981 of 13 December 2018 renewing the approval of the active substances copper compounds as candidates for substitution, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 (OJ 2018 L 317, p. 16).

         (2)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2015/408 of 11 March 2015 on implementing Article 80(7) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and establishing a list of candidates for substitution (OJ 2015 L 67, p. 18).

         (3)  Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (OJ 2009 L 309, p. 1).


title: Case T-154/19: Action brought on 11 March 2019 — ZU v EEAS

text:
               6.5.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/52

      Action brought on 11 March 2019 — ZU v EEAS
      (Case T-154/19)
      (2019/C 155/61)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: ZU (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyer)

         Defendant: European External Action Service (EEAS)

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of the EEAS of 30 November 2018, rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 27 July 2018, insofar as it implicitly rejects his statement of expenses of 26 February 2018;

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging failure to comply with applicable provisions of the Staff Regulations (inter alia, Articles 12a, 56 and 71 thereof) and infringement of Articles 31(1) and (2), 41(1) and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, violation of the ‘reasonable time’ principle, the principle of good administration and the principle of sound financial management (waste of EU resources), misuse of powers and concealing of evidence, breach of the rules governing the reimbursement of travel expenses, failure to comply with the principle of proportionality, manifest error of assessment, violation of the duty of care, and omission of prima facie elements identified in the applicant’s complaint based on Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations.


title: Case T-155/19: Action brought on 12 March 2019 — AP v EIF

text:
               6.5.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/53

      Action brought on 12 March 2019 — AP v EIF
      (Case T-155/19)
      (2019/C 155/62)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

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

         Defendant: European Investment Fund

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the decisions of the defendant dated 30 August 2018 and 3 October 2018 rejecting the applicant’s request dated 20 June 2018;

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay the benefits provided by article 33 of the Staff Regulations retroactively as of 1st April 2018 increased by late interest calculated at the level of the European Central Bank rate +2 points until full payment is received by the applicant;

                  —

                  order the defendant to compensate the moral harm, which can be evaluated, ex aequo et bono to the sum of at least 20 000 euros;

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay 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 that the illness of the applicant involved the suspension of the notice period and the application of the social security scheme. The applicant submits that the contrary would constitute a breach of the staff regulations, of the duty of care and of the principle of legitimate expectations.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging that the refusal to accept the withdrawal of the resignation of the applicant breaches the duty of care.


title: Case T-159/19: Action brought on 14 March 2019 — Bog-Fran v EUIPO — Fabryki Mebli ‘Forte’ (Furniture)

text:
               6.5.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/54

      Action brought on 14 March 2019 — Bog-Fran v EUIPO — Fabryki Mebli ‘Forte’ (Furniture)
      (Case T-159/19)
      (2019/C 155/63)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Bog-Fran sp. z o.o. sp.k. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: M. Mikosza, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fabryki Mebli ‘Forte’ S.A. (Ostrów Mazowiecka, Poland)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

         Design at issue: European Union design No 1384 002-0034

         Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 January 2019 in Case R 291/2018-3

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision and uphold the application for a declaration of invalidity;

                  —

                  order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear the costs of the proceedings and reimburse the applicant’s costs.

         Plea in law

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 7(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002.


title: Case T-160/19: Action brought on 14 March 2019 — LTTE v Council

text:
               6.5.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/54

      Action brought on 14 March 2019 — LTTE v Council
      (Case T-160/19)
      (2019/C 155/64)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) (Herning, Denmark) (represented by: A. van Eik and T. Buruma, lawyers)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/25 (1) insofar as it concerns the applicant.
      In the alternative, the applicant submits that a lesser measure than continued placement on the EU List of Terrorist Organizations is warranted in this case.
      The applicant additionally seeks an award of costs interest to be paid with interest by the Council and which will be specified at a later stage.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision is void insofar as it concerns the applicant since the latter cannot be qualified as a terrorist organization as defined in Article 1(3) of Council Common Position 2001/931/CFSP. (2)

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision is void insofar as it concerns the applicant since no decision by a competent authority, as required by Article 1(4) of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP, has been taken.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision is void insofar as it concerns the applicant since the Council has not conducted any proper review as required by Article 1(6) of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision is void insofar as it concerns the applicant as it does not comply with the requirements of proportionality and subsidiarity.

                  5.

                  Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision is void insofar as it concerns the applicant as it does not comply with the obligation to state reasons in conformity with Article 296 TFEU.

                  6.

                  Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision is void insofar as it concerns the applicant since it infringes upon the applicant’s rights of defence and its right to effective judicial protection.

         (1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/25 of 8 January 2019 amending and updating the list of persons, groups and entities subject to Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism, and repealing Decision (CFSP) 2018/1084 (OJ L 6, 9.1.2019, p. 6).

         (2)  Council Common Position 2001/931/CFSP of 27 December 2001 on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism (OJ L 344, 28.12.2001, p. 93).


title: Case T-167/19: Action brought on 14 March 2019 — Tempus Energy Germany and T Energy Sweden/Commission

text:
               6.5.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/55

      Action brought on 14 March 2019 — Tempus Energy Germany and T Energy Sweden/Commission
      (Case T-167/19)
      (2019/C 155/65)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicants: Tempus Energy Germany GmbH (Berlin, Germany), T Energy Sweden AB (Göteborg, Sweden) (represented by: D. Fouquet and J. Derenne, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicants claim that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the Commission’s decision dated 7 February 2018 relating to the planned Polish Capacity Mechanism (SA.46100, C(2018) 601 final) (1);

                  —

                  order the Commission to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the applicant.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging that, by failing to initiate the formal investigation procedure following the notification of the planned Polish capacity mechanism, the Commission violated Article 108(2) TFEU, Articles 4(4) and 6(1) of Regulation 2015/1589 (2), together with the principles of non-discrimination, proportionality and protection of legitimate expectations and made a wrong assessment of the facts. The Commission had not succeeded in overcoming the doubts that it must have encountered during the preliminary examination phase and this affected the applicants’ procedural rights.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to provide adequate reasoning in the contested decision, in breach of Article 296 TFEU.

         (1)  OJ 2018, C 462, p. 1

         (2)  Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (codification), OJ L 248, 24.9.2015, p.9.


title: Case T-169/19: Action brought on 19 March 2019 — Style & Taste v EUIPO — The Polo/Lauren Company (Representation of a polo player)

text:
               6.5.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/56

      Action brought on 19 March 2019 — Style & Taste v EUIPO — The Polo/Lauren Company (Representation of a polo player)
      (Case T-169/19)
      (2019/C 155/66)
      Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

         Parties

         Applicant: Style & Taste, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: L. Plaza Fernández-Villa, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: The Polo/Lauren Company LP (New York, New York, United States)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

         Trade mark at issue: Figurative mark (Representation of a polo player) — European Union trade mark No 4 049 201

         Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of
      7 January 2019 in Case R 1272/2018-5

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the General Court should declare that Community trade mark No 4 049 201 was preceded by industrial design 24087 and, consequently, declare that EU trade mark No 4 049 201, the property of PRL, lacks distinctiveness as laid down in the applicable rules and, consequently, annul that EU trade mark.

         Pleas in law

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 53(2) of Council Regulation (EU) No 207/2009.

                  —

                  Infringement of national legislation on legal protection of an industrial design, and of the Intellectual Property Act.


title: Case T-170/19: Action brought on 20 March 2019 — Sherpa Europe v EUIPO — Núcleo de comunicaciones y control (SHERPA NEXT)

text:
               6.5.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/57

      Action brought on 20 March 2019 — Sherpa Europe v EUIPO — Núcleo de comunicaciones y control (SHERPA NEXT)
      (Case T-170/19)
      (2019/C 155/67)
      Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

         Parties

         Applicant: Sherpa Europe, SL (Erandio, Spain) (represented by: M. Esteve Sanz, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Núcleo de comunicaciones y control, SL (Tres Cantos, Spain)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

         Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark SHERPA NEXT — Application for registration No 12 891 495

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 December 2018 in Case R 523/2017-2

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the General Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order the defendant and, if appropriate, the intervener, to bear the costs of the proceedings before the General Court, and the costs incurred in the appeal before the Board of Appeal.

         Pleas in law

      Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and of Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.


title: Case T-311/18: Order of the General Court of 5 March 2019 — Buck v EUIPO — Unger Holding (BUCK)

text:
               6.5.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/58

      Order of the General Court of 5 March 2019 — Buck v EUIPO — Unger Holding (BUCK)
      (Case T-311/18) (1)

      (2019/C 155/68)
      Language of the case: English
      The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 240, 9.7.2018.


title: Case T-188/19: Action brought on 1 April 2019 — United Kingdom v Commission

text:
               20.5.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 172/46

      Action brought on 1 April 2019 — United Kingdom v Commission
      (Case T-188/19)
      (2019/C 172/60)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: S. Brandon, Agent, T. Johnston and J. Scott, Barristers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the Commission’s decision to adopt the Final Audit Report, Audit Reference Number 14-BA262-013, as final, as notified to the United Kingdom Government by letter dated 20 December 2018 and received on 21 January 2019;

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging that the Auditors erred in law in finding that daily timesheets were required and, in doing so, misinterpreted the Grant Agreements.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging that the Final Audit Report unlawfully frustrates the Met Office’s legitimate expectation that its ex post facto time recording system and its monthly calculation of indirect costs rates would satisfy the requirements of the Grant Agreements.


title: Case C-165/19 P: Appeal brought on 22 February 2019 by Slovak Telekom, a.s. against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 13 December 2018 in Case T-851/14: Slovak Telekom v Commission

text:
               29.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/32

      Appeal brought on 22 February 2019 by Slovak Telekom, a.s. against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 13 December 2018 in Case T-851/14: Slovak Telekom v Commission
      (Case C-165/19 P)
      (2019/C 148/30)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellant: Slovak Telekom, a.s. (represented by: D. Geradin, Rechtsanwalt, R. O'Donoghue QC)

         Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Slovanet, a.s.

         Form of order sought

      The appellant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  set aside of the judgment of the General Court, in whole or in part;

                  —

                  annul the Decision, in whole or in part;

                  —

                  in the alternative, annul or further reduce the fines imposed on ST; and

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay all costs related to the present proceedings and the proceedings before the General Court.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

                  —

                  First Plea — Errors of law and/or a manifest error or lack of reasoning on refusal to deal:

                              —

                              First Sub-Plea: ST submits that the General Court's finding that the Bronner conditions for refusal to supply under Article 102 TFEU do not apply where there is an ex ante regulatory access obligation is incorrect. Moreover, the argument of the General Court that the Bronner condition of ‘indispensability’ did not need to be satisfied since an ex ante regulation had already acknowledged ‘the need for access to the applicant's local loop’ and that, accordingly, the Commission did not need to (re)examine ‘indispensability’ under Article 102 is an error of law.

                              —

                              Second Sub-Plea: ST submits that the General Court's finding that the CJEU judgment in TeliaSonera supports the proposition that the refusals to deal engaged in by ST do not require a demonstration that the Bronner conditions are satisfied is an error of law.

                              —

                              Third Sub-Plea: ST submits that General Court's finding that the General Court's Clearstream judgement should be distinguished from ST case because, unlike ST, it did not involve a former State monopoly or an ex ante regulatory access obligation is an error of law.

                              —

                              Fourth Sub-Plea: ST submits the General Court committed an error of law and/or a manifest error or lack of reasoning in its finding that a constructive refusal is
                              not necessarily less serious than an actual refusal, and that a case-by-case assessment is required.

                              —

                              Fifth Sub Plea: ST submits the General Court erred in law and/or made a manifest error of appreciation in concluding that ST being a former State monopoly provided a legal basis for ignoring the application of the Bronner conditions in the case at hand.

                  —

                  Second Plea — ST submits that the General Court's finding, whereby the Commission did not breach its rights of defence by failing to disclose its long-run average incremental costs (‘LRAIC’) methodology, principles, and data to ST, and allowing ST to comment, prior to the Decision, and in a time frame that allowed ST a meaningful opportunity to exercise its rights of defence, is an error of law.

                  —

                  Third Plea — ST submits that the General Court's reasons for rejecting its ‘optimisation’ adjustments involved errors of law in that they misapply the legal concept of an equally efficient operator (‘EEO’) in the particular context of the present case.


title: Case T-730/16: Judgment of the General Court of 13 March 2019 — Espírito Santo Financial Group v ECB (Access to documents — Decision 2004/258/EC — Documents relating to the ECB’s decision of 1 August 2014 concerning Banco Espírito Santo SA — Partial refusal to grant access — Exception relating to the confidentiality of the proceedings of the ECB’s decision-making bodies — Exception relating to the financial, monetary or economic policy of the European Union or of a Member State — Exception relating to the stability of the financial system in the European Union or in a Member State — Exception relating to the protection of commercial interests — Exception relating to documents intended for internal use — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               29.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/44

      Judgment of the General Court of 13 March 2019 — Espírito Santo Financial Group v ECB
      (Case T-730/16) (1)

      (Access to documents - Decision 2004/258/EC - Documents relating to the ECB’s decision of 1 August 2014 concerning Banco Espírito Santo SA - Partial refusal to grant access - Exception relating to the confidentiality of the proceedings of the ECB’s decision-making bodies - Exception relating to the financial, monetary or economic policy of the European Union or of a Member State - Exception relating to the stability of the financial system in the European Union or in a Member State - Exception relating to the protection of commercial interests - Exception relating to documents intended for internal use - Obligation to state reasons)
      (2019/C 148/40)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Espírito Santo Financial Group SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: R. Oliveira, S. Estima Martins and D. Duarte de Campos, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: F. von Lindeiner and S. Lambrinoc, acting as Agents, and by H.-G. Kamann, lawyer)

         Re:

      Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the ECB’s decision of 31 August 2016 refusing in part to disclose certain documents relating to its decision of 1 August 2014 concerning Banco Espírito Santo SA.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Annuls the decision of the European Central Bank (ECB) of 31 August 2016 partially refusing to disclose certain documents relating to its decision of 1 August 2014 concerning Banco Espírito Santo SA, in so far as it refused to disclose the amount of credit indicated in the extracts of the minutes recording the decision of the Governing Council of the ECB of 28 July 2014 and the information redacted from the proposals of the Executive Board of the ECB of 28 July and 1 August 2014;

                  2.

                     Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

                  3.

                     Orders Espírito Santo Financial Group SA and the ECB to bear their own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 462, 12.12.2016.


title: Case T-799/16: Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2019 — Xiaomi v EUIPO — Dudingen Develops (MI) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark MI — Earlier EU figurative mark MI — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001))

text:
               29.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/45

      Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2019 — Xiaomi v EUIPO — Dudingen Develops (MI)
      (Case T-799/16) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark MI - Earlier EU figurative mark MI - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001))
      (2019/C 148/41)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Xiaomi Inc. (Beijing, China) (represented by: T. Raab and C. Tenkhoff, lawyers)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Dudingen Develops, SL (Leganés, Spain)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 September 2016 (Case R 337/2016-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Xiaomi and Dudingen Develops.

         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 5 September 2016 (Case R 337/2016-4) in so far as it dismissed the appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division to reject the opposition to registration of the figurative sign MI as a European Union trade mark for ‘electricity mains (materials for -) [cables]’, ‘electric cables’, ‘insulated electrical cables’, ‘connection cables’, ‘cable connectors’, ‘plug adaptors’, ‘electrical power adaptors’, ‘travel adaptors for electric plugs’, ‘adapters for connecting telephones to hearing aids’ and ‘electrical power extension cords’, in Class 9, and ‘rucksacks’, ‘small rucksacks’ and ‘bags for climbers’, in Class 18;

                  2.

                     Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

                  3.

                     Orders Xiaomi Inc. to bear two thirds of its costs and to pay two thirds of the costs incurred by EUIPO;

                  4.

                     Orders EUIPO to bear one third of its costs and to pay one third of the costs incurred by Xiaomi.

         (1)  OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.


title: Case T-837/16: Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2019 — Sweden v Commission (REACH — Commission decision authorising the use of lead sulfochromate yellow and of lead chromate molybdate sulfate red — Article 60(4) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 — Consideration of the unavailability of alternatives — Error in law)

text:
               29.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/46

      Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2019 — Sweden v Commission
      (Case T-837/16) (1)

      (REACH - Commission decision authorising the use of lead sulfochromate yellow and of lead chromate molybdate sulfate red - Article 60(4) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 - Consideration of the unavailability of alternatives - Error in law)
      (2019/C 148/42)
      Language of the case: Swedish

         Parties

         Applicant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: initially, A. Falk and F. Bergius, and subsequently, A. Falk, C. Meyer-Seitz, H. Shev and J. Lundberg, acting as Agents)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lindenthal, K. Mifsud-Bonnici, K. Simonsson and G. Tolstoy, acting as Agents)

         Interveners in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: initially, C. Thorning and M. Wolff, and subsequently, M. Wolff and J. Nymann-Lindegren, acting as Agents); Republic of Finland (represented by: S. Hartikainen, acting as Agent); and the European Parliament (represented by: A. Neergaard and A. Tamás, acting as Agents)

         Intervener in support of the defendant: European Chemicals Agency (represented by: M. Heikkilä, W. Broere and C. Schultheiss, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision C(2016) 5644 final of 7 September 2016 granting an authorisation for some uses of lead sulfochromate yellow and of lead chromate molybdate sulfate red under Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Annuls Commission Implementing Decision C(2016) 5644 final of 7 September 2016 granting an authorisation for some uses of lead sulfochromate yellow and of lead chromate molybdate sulfate red under Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006;

                  2.

                     Dismisses the Commission’s application seeking, in the event of the annulment of Commission Implementing Decision C(2016) 5644 final of 7 September 2016, that the effects of that decision be maintained until the Commission is able to review the application for authorisation;

                  3.

                     Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Kingdom of Sweden;

                  4.

                     Orders the Kingdom of Denmark, the Republic of Finland and the European Parliament to bear their own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 38, 6.2.2017.


title: Case T-59/17: Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2019 — L v Parliament (Civil service — Accredited parliamentary assistant — Termination of the contract — Breakdown in the relationship of trust — Outside activity — Manifest error of assessment — Claim for damages)

text:
               29.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/47

      Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2019 — L v Parliament
      (Case T-59/17) (1)

      (Civil service - Accredited parliamentary assistant - Termination of the contract - Breakdown in the relationship of trust - Outside activity - Manifest error of assessment - Claim for damages)
      (2019/C 148/43)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: L (represented by: I. Coutant Peyre, lawyer)

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

         Re:

      Concerning, first, an application on the basis of Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the Parliament’s decision of 24 June 2016 terminating the applicant’s contract of employment as an accredited parliamentary assistant and, secondly, an application for damages for the non-material damage allegedly suffered by the applicant.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Annuls the Parliament’s decision of 24 June 2016 to terminate L’s contract as an accredited parliamentary assistant;

                  2.

                     Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

                  3.

                     Orders the European Parliament to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 221, 10.7.2017.


title: Case T-329/17: Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2019 –Hautala and Others v EFSA (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to carcinogenicity studies conducted in connection with the renewal of the approval of the active substance glyphosate — Partial refusal to grant access — Exception relating to the protection of commercial interests — Overriding public interest — Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 — Concept of information relating to emissions into the environment)

text:
               29.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/47

      Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2019 –Hautala and Others v EFSA
      (Case T-329/17) (1)

      (Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to carcinogenicity studies conducted in connection with the renewal of the approval of the active substance glyphosate - Partial refusal to grant access - Exception relating to the protection of commercial interests - Overriding public interest - Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 - Concept of information relating to emissions into the environment)
      (2019/C 148/44)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicants: Heidi Hautala (Finland), Benedek Jávor (Hungary), Michèle Rivasi (France), Bart Staes (Belgium) (represented by: B. Kloostra, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) (represented by: D. Detken, J. Tarazona, F. Volpi and B. Vagenende, acting as Agents, assisted by R. van der Hout and C. Wagner, lawyers)

         Interveners in support of the defendant: Cheminova A/S (Harboøre (Denmark), (represented by: C. Mereu, lawyer); and Monsanto Europe (Antwerp, Belgium); Monsanto Company (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented initially by M. Pittie, P. Honoré and N. Callens, and subsequently by P. Honoré, N. Callens and A. Helfer, lawyers)

         Re:

      Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for the partial annulment of the EFSA decision of 14 March 2017 partially refusing access to twelve carcinogenicity studies on the active substance glyphosate, conducted in connection with the procedure for renewing the approval of that active substance in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (OJ 2009 L 309, p. 1).

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Annuls the decision of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) of 14 March 2017, in so far as EFSA refused access to the parts ‘material, experimental conditions and methods’ and ‘results and discussion’ of 12 carcinogenicity studies on the active substance glyphosate;

                  2.

                     Orders EFSA to bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by Ms Heidi Hautala, Ms Michèle Rivasi, Mr Benedek Jávor and Mr Bart Staes;

                  3.

                     Orders Cheminova A/S, Monsanto Europe and Monsanto Company to bear their own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 249, 31.7.2017.


title: Case T-26/18: Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2019 — France v Commission (EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Expenditure incurred by France — One-off and flat-rate financial corrections — Area-related aid scheme — Land Parcel Identification System — Determination of eligible areas — Maintenance of agricultural land in good agricultural and environmental condition — Landscape features — Grazable heathland — National monitoring system based on a non-compliant definition of eligible areas — Proportionality — Obligation to state reasons — Conformity Clearance — Most likely error — Error of law)

text:
               29.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/50

      Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2019 — France v Commission
      (Case T-26/18) (1)

      (EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Expenditure incurred by France - One-off and flat-rate financial corrections - Area-related aid scheme - Land Parcel Identification System - Determination of eligible areas - Maintenance of agricultural land in good agricultural and environmental condition - Landscape features - Grazable heathland - National monitoring system based on a non-compliant definition of eligible areas - Proportionality - Obligation to state reasons - Conformity Clearance - Most likely error - Error of law)
      (2019/C 148/47)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: French Republic (represented by: F. Alabrune, D. Colas, A.-L. Desjonquères and S. Horrenberger, acting as Agents)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Lewis and D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the partial annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/2014 of 8 November 2017 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 2017 L 292, p. 61).

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 112, 26.3.2018.


title: Case T-106/18: Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2019 — Laverana v EUIPO — Agroecopark (VERA GREEN) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark VERA GREEN — Earlier EU word mark LAVERA — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

text:
               29.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/51

      Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2019 — Laverana v EUIPO — Agroecopark (VERA GREEN)
      (Case T-106/18) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark VERA GREEN - Earlier EU word mark LAVERA - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
      (2019/C 148/48)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Laverana GmbH & Co. KG (Wennigsen, Germany) (represented initially by J. Wachinger, M. Zöbisch and R. Drozdz, then by N. Schmitz and J. Bittner, lawyers)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Agroecopark, SL (Majadahonda, Spain) (represented by: E. Seijo Veiguela and C. Serrano Rodríguez, lawyers)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 December 2017 (Case R 982/2017-5) relating to opposition proceedings between Laverana and Agroecopark.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders Laverana GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 142, 23.4.2018.


title: Case T-297/18: Judgment of the General Court of 13 March 2019 — Wirecard Technologies v EUIPO — Striatum Ventures (supr) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark supr — Earlier Benelux word mark Zupr — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 60(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

text:
               29.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/51

      Judgment of the General Court of 13 March 2019 — Wirecard Technologies v EUIPO — Striatum Ventures (supr)
      (Case T-297/18) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark supr - Earlier Benelux word mark Zupr - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 60(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
      (2019/C 148/49)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

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

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Striatum Ventures BV (’s-Hertogenbosch, Netherlands) (represented by: G. Van den Hout, lawyer)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 February 2018 (Case R 2028/2017-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between Striatum Ventures and Wirecard Technologies.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders Wirecard Technologies GmbH to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 240,9.7.2018.


title: Case T-463/18: Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2019 — Novartis v EUIPO (SMARTSURFACE) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark SMARTSURFACE — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

text:
               29.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/52

      Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2019 — Novartis v EUIPO (SMARTSURFACE)
      (Case T-463/18) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark SMARTSURFACE - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
      (2019/C 148/50)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Novartis AG (Basle, Switzerland) (represented by: L. Junquera Lara, lawyer)

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

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 May 2018 (Case R 1765/2017-2), relating to an application for registration of the word sign SMARTSURFACE as an EU trade mark.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders Novartis AG to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 352, 1.10.2018.


title: Case T-326/18: Order of the General Court of 8 March 2019 — Herrero Torres v EUIPO — DZ Licores (CARAJILLO LICOR 43 CUARENTA Y TRES) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark CARAJILLO LICOR 43 CUARENTA Y TRES — Earlier national figurative mark Carajillo — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               29.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/53

      Order of the General Court of 8 March 2019 — Herrero Torres v EUIPO — DZ Licores (CARAJILLO LICOR 43 CUARENTA Y TRES)
      (Case T-326/18) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark CARAJILLO LICOR 43 CUARENTA Y TRES - Earlier national figurative mark Carajillo - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
      (2019/C 148/51)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Applicant: José-Ramón Herrero Torres (Castellón de la Plana, Spain) (represented by: J. Gil Martí, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas and H. O'Neill, acting as Agents)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: DZ Licores, SLU (Cartagena, Spain) (represented by: A. Vela Ballesteros and B. Lamas Begué, lawyers)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 March 2018 (Case R 2104/2017-5) relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Herrero Torres and DZ Licores.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                     The action is dismissed.

                  2.

                     Mr José-Ramón Herrero Torres shall pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 249, 16.7.2018.


title: Case T-131/19: Action brought on 25 February 2019 — Oosterbosch v Parliament

text:
               29.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/55

      Action brought on 25 February 2019 — Oosterbosch v Parliament
      (Case T-131/19)
      (2019/C 148/54)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Marc Oosterbosch (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Parliament

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  declare that the present application is admissible and well founded;

            consequently:

                  —

                  annul the ‘contested decision’ comprising the payslips for the months of March, April and June 2018;

                  —

                  declare, if necessary, that the decision of 6 November 2018 rejecting the complaint is annulled;

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay all the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, based on infringement of the principles of legality and legal certainty and a plea of illegality: the contested decision was taken on the basis of unlawful internal rules and implementing provisions.


title: Case T-132/19: Action brought on 26 February 2019 — Ashworth v Parliament

text:
               29.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/56

      Action brought on 26 February 2019 — Ashworth v Parliament
      (Case T-132/19)
      (2019/C 148/55)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Richard Ashworth (Lingfield, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Schmitt and A. Waisse, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Parliament

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  join the present case with the case brought by Mr Salvador Garriga Polledo and 45 others against the European Parliament on 19 February 2019 (Case T-102/19) on the basis of Article 68 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court owing to the connection between those two cases;

                  —

                  where necessary, by way of the measures of organisation of procedure or measures of inquiry of the case, order the European Parliament to disclose the opinions issued by the legal service of the European Parliament, which were allegedly delivered on 16 July 2018 and 3 December 2018, without prejudice to the precise date, and in any event before the adoption of the decision of the European Parliament Bureau of 10 December 2018 amending the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament (OJ 2018 C 466, p. 8, ‘the Implementing Measures’);

                  —

                  annul the aforementioned decision of the Parliament Bureau of 10 December 2018 amending the Implementing Measures, in so far as it amends Article 76 of the Implementing Measures (recitals 5 and 6, Article 1(7) and Article 2 in so far as it concerns Article 76 of the Implementing Measures of the aforementioned decision), or in so far as it introduces a levy of 5 % on pensions payable after 1 January 2019, or, should it be deemed that all the aforementioned elements cannot be considered separately from the rest of the contested act, annul the aforementioned decision in its entirety;

                  —

                  order the Parliament to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging lack of competence ratione materiae of the Bureau.

                              —

                              First, the contested act was adopted in infringement of the Statute for Members of the European Parliament adopted by decision of the European Parliament of 28 September 2005, 2005/684/EC, Euratom (OJ 2005 L 262, p.1) (‘the Statute’). The contested act infringes, inter alia, Article 27 of the Statute which requires that ‘acquired rights’ and ‘future entitlements’ be maintained.

                              —

                              Second, the contested act creates a tax by introducing a special levy of 5 % of the nominal amount of the pension although the creation of a tax does not fall within the competence of the Bureau according to Article 223(2) TFEU.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements.

                              —

                              First, the applicant alleges that the Bureau adopted the contested act without complying with the rules laid down in Article 223 TFEU.

                              —

                              Second, the contested act is insufficiently reasoned and therefore it infringes the duty to state reasons laid down in the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging infringement of acquired rights and future entitlements and of the principle of legitimate expectations.

                              —

                              First, the contested act infringes the acquired rights and future entitlements resulting both from the general principles of law and the Statute, which expressly requires that they be maintained ‘in full’ (Article 27).

                              —

                              Second, the contested act infringes the principle of legitimate expectations.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality and the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination.

                              —

                              First, the prejudice to the applicants’ rights is disproportionate to the objectives pursued by the contested act.

                              —

                              Second, the contested act must be annulled on the ground that it infringes the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination.

                  5.

                  Fifth plea in law alleging infringement of the legal certainty and the absence of transitional measures.

                              —

                              First, the contested act infringes the principle of legal certainty in that it has unlawful retroactive consequences.

                              —

                              Second, the contested act infringes the principle of legal certainty in that it failed to take transitional measures.


title: Case T-137/19: Action brought on 28 February 2019 — Souruh v Council

text:
               29.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/58

      Action brought on 28 February 2019 — Souruh v Council
      (Case T-137/19)
      (2019/C 148/57)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Souruh SA (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  declare the applicant’s action admissible and well founded;

                  —

                  as a consequence, order the European Union to pay compensation for all the harm suffered by the applicant at an amount to be determined by the Court on an equitable basis;

                  —

                  in the alternative, order an expert to be appointed in order to establish the total extent of the harm suffered by the applicant;

                  —

                  order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of the action, the applicant relies on a principal plea and an alternative plea, which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-55/19, Cham Holding and Bena Properties v Council.


title: Case C-226/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats Haarlem (Netherlands) lodged on 14 March 2019 — K.A. v Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken

text:
               3.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 187/44

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats Haarlem (Netherlands) lodged on 14 March 2019 — K.A. v Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken
      (Case C-226/19)
      (2019/C 187/48)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Referring court

      Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats Haarlem

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: K.A.

         Defendant: Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  In the case of an appeal as referred to in Article 32(3) of the Visa Code (1) against a final decision refusing a visa on the ground referred to in Article 32(1)(a)(vi) of the Visa Code, can it be said that there is an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 47 of the EU Charter under the following circumstances:

                              —

                              where, in its reasons for the decision, the Member State merely stated: ‘you are regarded by one or more Member States as a threat to public policy, internal security, public health as defined in Article 2.19 or 2.21 of the Schengen Borders Code, or to the international relations of one or more Member States’;

                              —

                              where, in the decision or in the appeal, the Member State does not state which specific ground or grounds of those four grounds set out in Article 32(1)(a)(vi) of the Visa Code is being invoked;

                              —

                              where, in the appeal, the Member State does not provide any further substantive information or substantiation of the ground or grounds on which the objection of the other Member State (or Member States) is based?

                  2.

                  In the circumstances outlined in Question 1, can there be said to be good administration within the meaning of Article 41 of the EU Charter, in particular, because of the duty of the services concerned to give reasons for their decisions?

                  3.

                              (a)

                              Should Questions 1 and 2 be answered differently if, in the final decision on the visa, the Member State refers to an actual and sufficiently clearly specified possibility of appeal in the other Member State against the specifically named authority responsible in that other Member State (or Member States) that has (or have) raised the objection referred to in Article 32(1)(a)(vi) of the Visa Code, in which that ground for refusal can be examined?

                              (b)

                              Does an affirmative answer to Question 1 in connection with Question 3(a) require that the decision in the appeal in and against the Member State that made the final decision be suspended until the applicant has had the opportunity to make use of the option of appealing in the other Member State (or Member States) and, if the applicant does make use of that opportunity, until the (final) decision on that appeal has been obtained?

                  4.

                  For the purpose of answering the questions, does it matter whether (the authority in) the Member State (or Member States) that has (or have) objected to the issuing of the visa can be given the opportunity, in the appeal against the final decision on the visa, to act as second defendant and on that basis to be given the opportunity to introduce a substantiation of the ground or grounds on which its objection is based?

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


title: Case C-214/18: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 April 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Sopocie Wydział I Cywilny — Poland) — proceedings brought by H. W. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2006/112/EC — Value added tax (VAT) — Court enforcement officer — Enforcement — Fees laid down by law — Administrative practice of the competent national authorities considering those fees to be inclusive of VAT — Principles of neutrality and proportionality)

text:
               17.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 206/13

      Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 April 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Sopocie Wydział I Cywilny — Poland) — proceedings brought by H. W.
      (Case C-214/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2006/112/EC - Value added tax (VAT) - Court enforcement officer - Enforcement - Fees laid down by law - Administrative practice of the competent national authorities considering those fees to be inclusive of VAT - Principles of neutrality and proportionality)
      (2019/C 206/15)
      Language of the case: Polish

         Referring court

      Sąd Rejonowy w Sopocie

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: H. W.

         Other parties: PSM ‘K’, Aleksandra Treder, court enforcement officer at the Sąd Rejonowy w Sopocie

         Operative part of the judgment

      The provisions of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2013/43/EU of 22 July 2013, and the principles of neutrality of value added tax (VAT) and proportionality must be interpreted as not precluding an administrative practice of the competent national authorities, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which the VAT relating to supplies of services by a court enforcement officer in an enforcement procedure is regarded as included in the fees charged by that officer.

         (1)  OJ C 259, 23.7.2018.


title: Case C-255/19: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) London (United Kingdom) made on 26 March 2019 — Secretary of State for the Home Department v O A

text:
               17.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 206/30

      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) London (United Kingdom) made on 26 March 2019 — Secretary of State for the Home Department v O A
      (Case C-255/19)
      (2019/C 206/35)
      Language of the case: English

         Referring court

      Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) London

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Secretary of State for the Home Department

         Defendant: O A

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Is ‘protection of the country of nationality’ within the meaning of Article 11(l)(e) and Article 2(e) of the Qualification Directive (1) to be understood as state protection?

                  2.

                  In deciding the issue of whether there is a well-founded fear of being persecuted within the meaning of Article 2(e) of the QD and the issue of whether there is protection available against such persecution, pursuant to Article 7 QD, is the ‘protection test’ or ‘protection inquiry’ to be applied to both issues and, if so, is it governed by the same criteria in each case?

                  3.

                  Leaving to one side the applicability of protection by non-State actors under Article 7(l)(b), and assuming the answer to question (1) above is yes, is the effectiveness or availability of protection to be assessed solely by reference to the protective acts/functions of state actors or can regard be had to the protective acts/functions performed by private (civil society) actors such as families and/or clans?

                  4.

                  Are (as is assumed in questions (2) and (3)) the criteria governing the ‘protection inquiry’ that has to be conducted when considering cessation in the context of Article 11(l)(e), the same as those to be applied in the Article 7 context?

         (1)  Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted (OJ 2004, L 304, p. 12).


title: Case T-268/19: Action brought on 22 April 2019 — Imagina Media Audiovisual and Others v Commission

text:
               24.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/63

      Action brought on 22 April 2019 — Imagina Media Audiovisual and Others v Commission
      (Case T-268/19)
      (2019/C 213/62)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicants: Imagina Media Audiovisual, SA (Barcelona, Spain), Imagina EU (Brussels, Belgium), dpa Deutsche Presse-Agentur GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: P. Kuypers, N. Groot, B. Vitez, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicants claim that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the decision of the Commission dated 12 February 2019 with reference Ares(2019)856949 on the exclusion of IMAGINA MEDIA AUDIOVISUAL SL from the procurement and grant award procedures governed by Regulation (EU, Euratom) no 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council, (1) to the extent that it excluded the Imagina/dpa Consortium or rejected its bids;

                  —

                  annul the decision of the Commission dated 9 April 2019 with reference Ares(2019)2494476 in so far as it should be considered the decision to exclude the Consortium from the tender with reference number PO/2018-05/A4 or rejected its bids;

                  —

                  annul the act(s) by which the Commission awards the contracts, or allows a party other than the Imagina/dpa Consortium to execute the audiovisual coverage of EU current affairs, related to Lots I, III and VI as described in the Tender;

                  —

                  order the Commission to compensate the Consortium for the damage that the Commission caused by preventing the Consortium to execute the contracts for Lots I, III and VI;

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay the applicants’ costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment by failing to recognise that the exclusion of Imagina Media Audiovisual SL — being one of the members of the Consortium — has no effect on the execution of the contract regarding Lots I, III and VI of the Tender by the Consortium. Nor does the exclusion of Imagina Media Audiovisual SL have any effect on the decisions by which the Commission awarded these contracts to the Consortium.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment by failing to correctly apply the tender documents. Consequently, the Commission did not require the Consortium to replace Imagina Media Audiovisual SL with another entity to form part of the Consortium, as was required by the tender documents.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment by failing to apply correctly Article 136(9) of Regulation 2018/1046. Consequently, the authorising officer of the Commission did not require the Consortium to replace Imagina Media Audiovisual SL with another entity to form part of the Consortium, as was required by Regulation 2018/1046.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the Consortium’s right to an effective remedy, and the principle of sound administration. The Commission unlawfully used its decision dated 12 February 2019 with reference Ares(2019) 856949 on the exclusion of Imagina Media Audiovisual SL or its letter dated 9 April 2019 with reference Ares(2019) 2494476 to exclude the Consortium from the tender with reference number PO/2018-05/A4.

                  5.

                  Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the Consortium’s right to an effective remedy, the Commission’s obligation to state reasons and the principle of sound administration. The Commission committed procedural errors and illegally awarded the contracts for Lots I, III and VI of the tender with reference number PO/2018-05/A4 to a tenderer other than the Consortium.

                  6.

                  Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Commission caused damages to the Consortium by the unlawful conduct on the part of the Commission as a consequence whereof the Consortium cannot execute the contracts for Lots I, III and VI of the tender with reference number PO/2018-05/A4.

         (1)  Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union, amending Regulations (EU) No 1296/2013, (EU) No 1301/2013, (EU) No 1303/2013, (EU) No 1304/2013, (EU) No 1309/2013, (EU) No 1316/2013, (EU) No 223/2014, (EU) No 283/2014, and Decision No 541/2014/EU and repealing Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012, OJ L 193, 30.7.2018, p.1.


title: Case T-570/18: Order of the General Court of 30 April 2019 — YQ v Commission

text:
               24.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/84

      Order of the General Court of 30 April 2019 — YQ v Commission
      (Case T-570/18) (1)

      (2019/C 213/82)
      Language of the case: French
      The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 408, 12.11.2018.


title: Case T-746/18: Order of the General Court of 30 April 2019 — Bronckers v Commission

text:
               24.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/85

      Order of the General Court of 30 April 2019 — Bronckers v Commission
      (Case T-746/18) (1)

      (2019/C 213/85)
      Language of the case: English
      The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 72, 25.2.2019.


title: Case C-312/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 16 April 2019 — XT v Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

text:
               1.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/19

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 16 April 2019 — XT v Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos
      (Case C-312/19)
      (2019/C 220/25)
      Language of the case: Lithuanian

         Referring court

      Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: XT

         Defendant: Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Are Article 9(1) and Article 193 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax to be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those in the case under consideration, a natural person such as the applicant cannot be regarded as having ‘independently’ carried out the (economic) activity in question and as having to pay by himself the value added tax on the contested supplies, that is to say, for the purposes of Article 9(1) and Article 193 of Directive 2006/112/EC, is the taxable person liable for the obligations at issue to be taken to be the joint activity/partnership (the participants in the joint activity collectively; in the instance under consideration, the applicant and his business partner collectively) — which under national law is not regarded as a taxable person and does not enjoy legal personality — and not solely a natural person such as the applicant?

                  2.

                  If the first question is answered in the affirmative, is Article 193 of Directive 2006/112/EC to be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those in the case under consideration, VAT is paid individually by each of the participants (in the instance under consideration, the applicant and his business partner) in the joint activity/partnership — which joint activity/partnership is, under national law, not regarded as constituting a taxable person and does not enjoy legal personality — on the part of each payment by way of consideration that is received by them (or is receivable by or owed to them) for the taxable supplies of immovable property? Is Article 287 of Directive 2006/112/EC to be interpreted as meaning that, in such circumstances such as those in this case, the annual turnover referred to in that provision is established by taking into account the entire revenue of the joint activity (received collectively by the participants in the joint activity)?

         (1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


title: Case C-321/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen (Germany) lodged on 18 April 2019 — BY and CZ v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               1.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/20

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen (Germany) lodged on 18 April 2019 — BY and CZ v Federal Republic of Germany
      (Case C-321/19)
      (2019/C 220/26)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: BY, CZ

         Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Can an individual toll-payer rely, before national courts, on compliance with the provisions regarding the calculation of the toll under Article 7(9) and Article 7a(1) and (2) of Directive 1999/62/EC as amended by Directive 2006/38/EC (1) (regardless of the arrangements in Article 7a(3) in conjunction with Annex III thereto), if, in the statutory determination of tolls, the Member State did not fully comply with those provisions or incorrectly implemented them to the detriment of the toll-payer?

                  2.

                  If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative:

                              (a)

                              Can traffic police costs also be treated as costs of operating the infrastructure network within the meaning of the second sentence of Article 7(9) of Directive 1999/62/EC as amended by Directive 2006/38/EC?

                              (b)

                              Does an overrun of the infrastructure costs which can be taken into account in the weighted average toll in the range of

                                          (aa)

                                          up to 3.8%, in particular when account is taken of costs which cannot in principle be taken into account,

                                          (bb)

                                          up to 6 %
                                          lead to a breach of the cost overrun prohibition under Article 7(9) of Directive 1999/62/EC as amended by Directive 2006/38/EC, with the result that national law is, to that extent, not applicable?

                  3.

                  If Question 2(b) is to be answered in the affirmative:

                              (a)

                              Is the judgment of the Court of Justice of 26 September 2000 (C-205/98, (2) paragraph 138) to be understood as meaning that a substantial cost overrun can ultimately no longer be offset by an ex post calculation of costs filed in judicial proceedings, which is intended to prove that the fixed toll rate ultimately does not actually exceed the costs which can be taken into account?

                              (b)

                              If Question 3(a) is to be answered in the negative:
                              Is an ex post calculation of costs after the end of the calculation period to be based entirely on the actual costs and the actual toll revenue, that is to say, not on the assumptions made in this regard in the original predictive calculation?

         (1)  OJ 2006 L 15, p. 8.

         (2)  OJ 2000 C 335, p. 10.


title: Case C-322/19: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court (Ireland) made on 23 April 2019 — KS, MHK v The International Protection Appeals Tribunal, the Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland and the Attorney General

text:
               1.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/21

      Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court (Ireland) made on 23 April 2019 — KS, MHK v The International Protection Appeals Tribunal, the Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland and the Attorney General
      (Case C-322/19)
      (2019/C 220/27)
      Language of the case: English

         Referring court

      High Court (Ireland)

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: KS, MHK

         Defendants: The International Protection Appeals Tribunal, the Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland and the Attorney General

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Where in interpreting one instrument of EU law that applies in a particular member state an instrument not applying to that member state is adopted at the same time, may regard be had to the latter instrument in interpreting the former instrument?

                  2.

                  Does Art. 15 of the Reception Conditions Directive (Recast) 2013/33/EU (1) apply to a person in respect of whom a transfer decision under the Dublin III Regulation, Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013 (2), has been made?

                  3.

                  Is a member state in implementing Art. 15 of the Reception Conditions Directive (Recast)) 2013/33/EU entitled to adopt a general measure that in effect attributes to applicants liable for transfer under the Dublin III Regulation, Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013, any delays on or after the making of a transfer decision?

                  4.

                  Where an applicant leaves a member state having failed to seek international protection there and travels to another member state where he or she makes an application for international protection and becomes subject to a decision under the Dublin III Regulation, Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013, transferring him or her back to the first member state, can the consequent delay in dealing with the application for protection be attributed to the applicant for the purposes of Art. 15 of the Reception Conditions Directive (Recast)) 2013/33/EU?

                  5.

                  Where an applicant is liable to transfer to another member state under the Dublin III Regulation, Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013, but that transfer is delayed due to judicial review proceedings taken by the applicant which have the consequence of suspending the transfer pursuant to a stay ordered by the court, can the consequent delay in dealing with the application for international protection be attributed to the applicant for the purposes of Art. 15 of the Reception Conditions Directive (Recast)) 2013/33/EU, either generally or, in particular, where it may be determined in those proceedings that the judicial review is unfounded, manifestly or otherwise, or is an abuse of process?

         (1)  Directive 2013/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection, OJ 2013, L 180, p. 96

         (2)  Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person, OJ 2013, L 180, p. 31