title: Case C-62/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul București (Romania) lodged on 29 January 2019 — Star Taxi App SRL v Unitatea Administrativ Teritorială Municipiului București prin Primarul General and Consiliul General al Municipiului București

text:
               13.5.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 164/14

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul București (Romania) lodged on 29 January 2019 — Star Taxi App SRL v Unitatea Administrativ Teritorială Municipiului București prin Primarul General and Consiliul General al Municipiului București
      (Case C-62/19)
      (2019/C 164/16)
      Language of the case: Romanian

         Referring court

      Tribunalul București

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Star Taxi App SRL

         Defendants: Unitatea Administrativ Teritorială Municipiului București prin Primarul General and Consiliul General al Municipiului București

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Are the provisions of Directive 98/34/EC (1) (Article 1(2)), as amended by Directive 98/48/EC, (2) and of Directive 2000/31/EC (3) (Article 2(a)), which state that an Information Society service is a ‘service. provided for remuneration, at a distance, by electronic means and at the individual request of a recipient of services’, to be interpreted as meaning that an activity such as that carried on by Star Taxi App SRL (namely a service consisting in putting taxi passengers directly in touch, via an electronic application, with taxi drivers) must be regarded specifically as an Information Society and collaborative economy service (bearing in mind that Star Taxi App SRL does not fulfil the criteria for being a transport undertaking considered by the Court of Justice of the European Union in paragraph 39 of its judgment in Case C-434/15 with reference to Uber)?

                  2.

                  In the event that [the application operated by] Star Taxi App SRL is to be regarded as an Information Society service, do the provisions of Article 4 of Directive 2000/31/EC, of Articles 9, 10 and 16 of Directive 2006/123/EC (4) and of Article 56 TFEU entail the application of the principle of the freedom to provide services to the activity carried on by Star Taxi App SRL? If the answer to that question is in the affirmative, do those provisions preclude rules such as those set out in Articles I, II, III, IV and V of Hotărârea Consiliului General al Municipiului București nr. 626/19.12.2017 (Decision No 626 of the General Council of the Municipality of Bucharest of 19 December 2017) (‘CGMB Decision No 626/2017’) amending and supplementing CGMB Decision No 178/2008 approving the framework regulation for the organisation and operation of local public taxi services, the regulations governing that service and the concession agreement for the delegated management of that service?

                  3.

                  In the event that Directive 2000/31/EC applies to the service provided by Star Taxi App SRL, are restrictions imposed by a Member State on the freedom to provide Information Society services which make the provision of such services conditional on the possession of an authorisation or licence valid measures derogating from Article 3(2) of Directive 2000/31/EC in accordance with Article 3(4) of that directive?

                  4.

                  Do the provisions of Article 5 of Directive (EU) 2015/1535 (5) preclude the adoption, without first notifying the European Commission, of regulations such as those set out in Articles I, II, III, IV and V of CGMB Decision No 626/2017 amending and supplementing CGMB Decision No 178/2008 approving the framework regulation for the organisation and operation of local public taxi services, the regulations governing that service and the concession agreement for the delegated management of that service?

         (1)  Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations (OJ 1998 L 204, p. 37).

         (2)  Directive 98/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 July 1998 amending Directive 98/34/EC laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations (OJ 1998 L 217, p. 18).

         (3)  Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’) (OJ 2000 L 178, p. 1).

         (4)  Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market (OJ 2006 L 376, p. 36).

         (5)  Directive (EU) 2015/1535 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 September 2015 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical regulations and of rules on Information Society services (codification) (OJ 2015 L 241, p. 1).


title: Case C-154/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Eparchiako Dikastirio Larnakas (Cyprus) lodged on 22 February 2019 — Cyprus Central Authority v GA

text:
               13.5.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 164/24

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Eparchiako Dikastirio Larnakas (Cyprus) lodged on 22 February 2019 — Cyprus Central Authority v GA
      (Case C-154/19)
      (2019/C 164/27)
      Language of the case: Greek

         Referring court

      Eparchiako Dikastirio Larnakas (Cyprus)

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Cyprus Central Authority

         Defendant: GA

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Should the independence from the executive of a public prosecutor’s office which issues a European arrest warrant in accordance with the applicable national law be judged by its role in the relevant national legal system? If not, by what criteria should its independence from the executive be judged?

                  2.

                  Is the Hamburg Public Prosecutor’s Office, which forms part of the executive, rather than the judiciary, under national German law, is part of the structure of the Ministry for Justice and is required to prosecute criminal offenders where it considers appropriate, having appraised all the evidence, both incriminating and exculpatory, sufficiently independent an authority involved in the dispensation of criminal justice to qualify as a ‘judicial authority’ within the meaning of Article 6(1) of the Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 (1) on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States?

                  3.

                  If the answer is in the affirmative, should the Hamburg Public Prosecutor’s Office also be operationally independent from the executive in respect of all cases handled by it and by what criteria should that operational independence be judged?

                  4.

                  Given that, under German law, a European arrest warrant issued by the Hamburg Public Prosecutor’s Office is subject to incidental — rather than direct — judicial review, by challenging the alert entered in the Schengen Information System (SIS) once the European arrest warrant concerned has been issued, is a European arrest warrant issued by the Hamburg Public Prosecutor’s Office a ‘judicial decision’ within the meaning of Article 6(1) of the Framework Decision that is compatible with the principle of mutual recognition enshrined in Article 1(2) of the Framework Decision?

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


title: Case C-213/19: Action brought on 7 March 2019 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

text:
               13.5.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 164/38

      Action brought on 7 March 2019 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
      (Case C-213/19)
      (2019/C 164/40)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, Agents)

         Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

         The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  declare that:

                              1.

                              by failing to enter into the accounts the correct amounts of customs duties and to make available the correct amount of traditional own resources and VAT-based own resources in respect of certain imports of textiles and footwear from the People’s Republic of China, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2 and 8 of Council Decision 2014/335 (1), Articles 2 and 8 of Council Decision 2007/436 (2), Articles 2, 6, 9, 10, 12 and 13 of Council Regulation 609/2014 (3), Articles 2, 6, 9, 10, 11 and 17 of Council Regulation 1150/2000 (4), Article 2 of Council Regulation 1553/89 (5), as well as Article 105(3) of Council Regulation 952/2013 (6), and Article 220(1) of Council Regulation 2913/92 (7);
                              as a consequence of its failure to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union, Articles 325 and 310(6) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Articles 3 and 46 of Regulation 952/2013, Article 13 of Council Regulation 2913/92, Article 248(1) of Commission Regulation 2454/93 (8), Article 244 of Commission Implementing Regulation 2015/2447 (9), and Articles 2(1)(b) and (d), 83, 85-87 and 143(1)(d) and (2) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (10);
                              The corresponding traditional own resources losses to be made available to the Union budget (minus collection costs) amount to:

                                          —

                                          EUR 496,025,324.30 in 2017 (until 11 October 2017 included);

                                          —

                                          EUR 646,809,443.80 in 2016;

                                          —

                                          EUR 535,290,329.16 in 2015;

                                          —

                                          EUR 480,098,912.45 in 2014;

                                          —

                                          EUR 325,230,822.55 in 2013;

                                          —

                                          EUR 173,404,943.81 in 2012;

                                          —

                                          EUR 22,777,312.79 in 2011.

                              2.

                              by failing to provide full information required by the Commission services necessary for establishing the amount of TOR losses, and by not providing as requested the content of the legal assessment of HMRC's legal department or the motivation of the decision that led to the cancellation of the established customs debts, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union, and Articles 2(2) and (3)(d) of Council Regulation 608/2014 (11); and

                  —

                  order the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Despite repeated warnings about the risk of fraud by OLAF and the Commission, the United Kingdom failed to put in place risk-based approaches in customs control to prevent the release into free circulation of undervalued goods into the Union (specifically, footwear and textiles exported from the People’s Republic of China) until 12 October 2017. As a result of that inaction in the face of repeated warnings, the United Kingdom failed to take the risk-based measures required under the Union’s customs and own resources legislation. That failure to take appropriate action also affected the correct application of the Union’s VAT rules. There have been exceptionally high losses to the Union budget caused by the United Kingdom’s breach of Union law and the resulting levels of imports of undervalued goods to that Member State. Because the United Kingdom did not follow the Commission's recommendations, in contrast to other Member States, the United Kingdom attracted more undervalued trade. Those exceptionally high losses also affected drastically fair burden-sharing among Member States, as they had to be compensated by correspondingly higher GNI contributions by the other Member States to the Union.

         (1)  2014/335/EU, Euratom: Council Decision of 26 May 2014 on the system of own resources of the European Union (JO 2014, L 168, p. 105).

         (2)  2007/436/EC,Euratom: Council Decision of 7 June 2007 on the system of the European Communities’ own resources (JO 2007, L 163, p. 17).

         (3)  Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 609/2014 of 26 May 2014 on the methods and procedure for making available the traditional, VAT and GNI-based own resources and on the measures to meet cash requirements (Recast) (JO 2014, L 168, p. 39).

         (4)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities' own resources (JO 2000, L 130, p. 1).

         (5)  Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1553/89 of 29 May 1989 on the definitive uniform arrangements for the collection of own resources accruing from value added tax (JO 1989, L 155, p. 9).

         (6)  Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code (JO 2013, L 269, p. 1).

         (7)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (JO 1992, L 302, p. 1).

         (8)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (JO 1993, L 253, p. 1).

         (9)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 of 24 November 2015 laying down detailed rules for implementing certain provisions of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the Union Customs Code (JO 2015, L 343, p. 558).

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

         (11)  Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 608/2014 of 26 May 2014 laying down implementing measures for the system of own resources of the European Union (JO 2014, L 168, p. 29).


title: Case C-569/17: Order of the President of the First Chamber of the Court of 13 February 2019 (request for a preliminaryruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Japan Tobacco International SA, Japan Tobacco International France SAS v Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes publics, Ministre des Solidarités et de la Santé

text:
               20.5.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 172/24

      Order of the President of the First Chamber of the Court of 13 February 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Japan Tobacco International SA, Japan Tobacco International France SAS v Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes publics, Ministre des Solidarités et de la Santé
      (Case C-569/17) (1)

      (2019/C 172/29)
      Language of the case: French
      The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 437, 18.12.2017.


title: Case C-657/17: Order of the President of the Court of 25 February 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from theVerwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Hussein Mohamad Hussein, other party: Bundesamt für Fremdenwesen und Asyl

text:
               20.5.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 172/24

      Order of the President of the Court of 25 February 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Hussein Mohamad Hussein, other party: Bundesamt für Fremdenwesen und Asyl
      (Case C-657/17) (1)

      (2019/C 172/30)
      Language of the case: German
      The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 52, 12.2.2018.


title: Case C-368/18: Order of the President of the Ninth Chamber of the Court of 30 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Justice de paix du troisième canton de Charleroi — Belgium) — Frank Casteels v Ryanair DAC,formerly Ryanair Ltd

text:
               20.5.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 172/25

      Order of the President of the Ninth Chamber of the Court of 30 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Justice de paix du troisième canton de Charleroi — Belgium) — Frank Casteels v Ryanair DAC, formerly Ryanair Ltd
      (Case C-368/18) (1)

      (2019/C 172/32)
      Language of the case: French
      The President of the Ninth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 285, 13.8.2018.


title: Case C-498/18: Order of the President of the Court of 11 February 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — ZW v Deutsche Lufthansa AG

text:
               20.5.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 172/25

      Order of the President of the Court of 11 February 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — ZW v Deutsche Lufthansa AG
      (Case C-498/18) (1)

      (2019/C 172/34)
      Language of the case: Spanish
      The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 399, 5.11.2018.


title: Case C-614/18: Order of the President of the Court of 11 February 2019 — European Commission v Slovak Republic

text:
               20.5.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 172/26

      Order of the President of the Court of 11 February 2019 — European Commission v Slovak Republic
      (Case C-614/18) (1)

      (2019/C 172/35)
      Language of the case: Slovak
      The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 445, 10.12.2018.


title: Case C-660/18: Order of the President of the Court of 8 February 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Berlin — Germany) — Sundair GmbH v WV, XU, YT, ZS

text:
               20.5.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 172/26

      Order of the President of the Court of 8 February 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Berlin — Germany) — Sundair GmbH v WV, XU, YT, ZS
      (Case C-660/18) (1)

      (2019/C 172/36)
      Language of the case: German
      The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 25, 21.1.2019.


title: Case C-701/18: Order of the President of the Court of 31 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Nürnberg — Germany) — Geld-für-Flug GmbH v Ryanair DAC

text:
               20.5.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 172/26

      Order of the President of the Court of 31 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Nürnberg — Germany) — Geld-für-Flug GmbH v Ryanair DAC
      (Case C-701/18) (1)

      (2019/C 172/37)
      Language of the case: German
      The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 72, 25.2.2019.


title: Case C-750/18: Order of the President of the Court of 8 February 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam — Netherlands) — A, B v C

text:
               20.5.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 172/27

      Order of the President of the Court of 8 February 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam — Netherlands) — A, B v C
      (Case C-750/18) (1)

      (2019/C 172/38)
      Language of the case: Dutch
      The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 93, 11.3.2019.


title: Cases T-251/17 and T-252/17: Judgment of the General Court of 28 March 2019 — Robert Bosch v EUIPO (Simply. Connected.) (EU trade mark — Applications for the EU figurative marks Simply. Connected. — Relative ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Scope of the examination which has to be carried out by the Board of Appeal — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Article 64 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 71 of Regulation 2017/1001))

text:
               20.5.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 172/28

      Judgment of the General Court of 28 March 2019 — Robert Bosch v EUIPO (Simply. Connected.)
      (Cases T-251/17 and T-252/17) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Applications for the EU figurative marks Simply. Connected. - Relative ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Scope of the examination which has to be carried out by the Board of Appeal - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Article 64 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 71 of Regulation 2017/1001))
      (2019/C 172/39)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Robert Bosch GmbH (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: S. Völker and M. Pemsel, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: V. Mensing and D. Hanf, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Actions brought against the decisions of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 March 2017 (Case R 948/2016-5) and 10 March 2017 (Case R 947/2016-5), regarding applications for registration of the figurative signs Simply. Connected. as EU trade marks

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Joins Cases T-251/17 and T-252/17 for the purposes of the judgment;

                  2.

                     Dismisses the actions;

                  3.

                     Orders Robert Bosch GmbH to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 195, 19.6.2017.


title: Case T-480/17: Judgment of the General Court of 26 March 2019 — Greece v Commission (EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Expenditure incurred by Greece — One-off and flat-rate financial corrections — Cross compliance — Monitoring of statutory management requirements — Risk analysis — Assessment of the financial loss — Obligation to state reasons — Proportionality)

text:
               20.5.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 172/29

      Judgment of the General Court of 26 March 2019 — Greece v Commission
      (Case T-480/17) (1)

      (EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Expenditure incurred by Greece - One-off and flat-rate financial corrections - Cross compliance - Monitoring of statutory management requirements - Risk analysis - Assessment of the financial loss - Obligation to state reasons - Proportionality)
      (2019/C 172/40)
      Language of the case: Greek

         Parties

         Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: G. Kanellopoulos and Α. Vassilopoulou, acting as Agents)

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

         Re:

      Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/1144 of 26 June 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 165, p. 37), in so far as it imposes on the Hellenic Republic, following the investigation under reference XC/2014/002/GR, one-off and flat-rate financial corrections amounting in total to EUR 1182 054.17 because of weaknesses in the application of cross compliance (EAGF and EAFRD).

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 357, 23.10.2017.


title: Case T-492/17: Judgment of the General Court of 2 April 2019 — Fleig v EEAS (Civil Service — Contract staff — Contract of indefinite duration — Article 47(c)(i) of the CEOS — Termination with notice — Grounds for termination — Breakdown in the relationship of trust — Interests of the service — Manifest error of assessment — Duty to have regard to the welfare of staff — Principle of sound administration — Articles 30 and 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Procedural issue — Publication on the Internet ofdocuments included in the file relating to the proceedings before the General Court — Article 17 of the StaffRegulations)

text:
               20.5.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 172/29

      Judgment of the General Court of 2 April 2019 — Fleig v EEAS
      (Case T-492/17) (1)

      (Civil Service - Contract staff - Contract of indefinite duration - Article 47(c)(i) of the CEOS - Termination with notice - Grounds for termination - Breakdown in the relationship of trust - Interests of the service - Manifest error of assessment - Duty to have regard to the welfare of staff - Principle of sound administration - Articles 30 and 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Procedural issue - Publication on the Internet of documents included in the file relating to the proceedings before the General Court - Article 17 of the Staff Regulations)
      (2019/C 172/41)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Stephan Fleig (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

         Defendant: European External Action Service (represented by: S. Marquardt, acting as Agent)

         Re:

      Application pursuant to Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of 19 September 2016 by which the director of the ‘Human Resources’ Directorate of the EEAS, acting in his capacity as the authority authorised to conclude contracts of employment, terminated the applicant’s employment contract with effect from 19 June 2017 and, secondly, compensation for the damage which the applicant claims to have suffered following that decision.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders Mr Stephan Fleig to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 318, 25.9.2017.


title: Case T-562/17: Judgment of the General Court of 28 March 2019 — dm-drogerie markt v EUIPO — Albea Services (ALBÉA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark ALBÉA — Earlier international registration designating the European Union — Word mark Balea — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) ofRegulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

text:
               20.5.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 172/30

      Judgment of the General Court of 28 March 2019 — dm-drogerie markt v EUIPO — Albea Services (ALBÉA)
      (Case T-562/17) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark ALBÉA - Earlier international registration designating the European Union - Word mark Balea - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
      (2019/C 172/42)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: dm-drogerie markt GmbH & Co. KG (Karlsruhe, Germany) (represented by: O. Bludovsky and C. Mellein, lawyers)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Albea Services (Gennevilliers, France) (represented by: J.-H. de Mitry, lawyer)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 May 2017 (Case R 1870/2016-1), relating to opposition proceedings between dm-drogerie markt and Albea Services.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 25 May 2017 (Case R 1870/2016-1);

                  2.

                     Declares that the parties are to bear their own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 338, 9.10.2017.


title: Case T-611/17: Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2019 — All Star v EUIPO — Carrefour Hypermarchés (Shape of a shoe sole) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Three-dimensional EU trade mark — Shape of a shoe sole — Well known facts — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of defence — Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(3) and Article 52(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(3) and Article 59(2) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Rejection of the request to hold a hearing before the Board of Appeal — Article 77 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 96(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)

text:
               20.5.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 172/31

      Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2019 — All Star v EUIPO — Carrefour Hypermarchés (Shape of a shoe sole)
      (Case T-611/17) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Three-dimensional EU trade mark - Shape of a shoe sole - Well known facts - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of defence - Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) and Article 52(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(3) and Article 59(2) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Rejection of the request to hold a hearing before the Board of Appeal - Article 77 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 96(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)
      (2019/C 172/43)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: All Star CV (Beaverton, Oregon, United States) (represented by: R. Kunze, G. Würtenberger, lawyers, and S. Malynicz QC)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Carrefour Hypermarchés (Évry, France) (represented by: C. Verneret, lawyer)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 June 2017 (Case R 952/2014-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Carrefour Hypermarchés and All Star.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders All Star CV to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 374, 6.11.2017.


title: Case T-804/17: Judgment of the General Court of 4 April 2019 — Stada Arzneimittel v EUIPO (Representation of two facing arches) (EU trade mark — Application for an EU figurative mark representing two facing arches — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

text:
               20.5.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 172/33

      Judgment of the General Court of 4 April 2019 — Stada Arzneimittel v EUIPO (Representation of two facing arches)
      (Case T-804/17) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Application for an EU figurative mark representing two facing arches - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
      (2019/C 172/45)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Stada Arzneimittel AG (Bad Vilbel, Germany) (represented by: J.-C. Plate and R. Kaase, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented initially by D. Hanf and D. Walicka and subsequently by D. Hanf and E. Markakis, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 September 2017 (Case R 1887/2016-1) relating to an application for registration of a figurative sign representing two facing arches as an EU trade mark.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders Stada Arzneimittel AG to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 42, 5.2.2018.


title: Case T-259/18: Judgment of the General Court of 28 March 2019 — Zakłady Chemiczne ‘Siarkopol’ Tarnobrzeg v EUIPO — EuroChem Agro (Unifoska) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark Unifoska — Earlier EU word mark NITROFOSKA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

text:
               20.5.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 172/33

      Judgment of the General Court of 28 March 2019 — Zakłady Chemiczne ‘Siarkopol’ Tarnobrzeg v EUIPO — EuroChem Agro (Unifoska)
      (Case T-259/18) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark Unifoska - Earlier EU word mark NITROFOSKA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
      (2019/C 172/46)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Zakłady Chemiczne ‘Siarkopol’ Tarnobrzeg (Tarnobrzeg, Poland) (represented by: M. Kondrat, 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, intervener before the General Court: EuroChem Agro GmbH (Mannheim, Germany) (represented by: M. Schmidhuber and A. Haberer, lawyers)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 February 2018 (Case R 1503/2017-5), relating to opposition proceedings between EuroChem Agro and Zakłady Chemiczne ‘Siarkopol’ Tarnobrzeg.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders Zakłady Chemiczne ‘Siarkopol’ Tarnobrzeg sp. z o.o. to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 221, 25.6.2018.


title: Case T-186/18: Order of the General Court of 25 March 2019 — Abaco Energy and Others v Commission (Actions for annulment — State aid — Aid scheme for renewable energies — Preliminary examination procedure — Decision finding the aid scheme compatible with the internal market — Action brought by recipients — No interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility)

text:
               20.5.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 172/34

      Order of the General Court of 25 March 2019 — Abaco Energy and Others v Commission
      (Case T-186/18) (1)

      (Actions for annulment - State aid - Aid scheme for renewable energies - Preliminary examination procedure - Decision finding the aid scheme compatible with the internal market - Action brought by recipients - No interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility)
      (2019/C 172/47)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicants: Abaco Energy, SA (Madrid, Spain) and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex (represented by: initially P. Holtrop, P. Kuypers and M. de Wit, and subsequently P. Holtrop, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche, P. Němečková and S. Noë, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2017) 7384 final of 10 November 2017 relating to State aid SA.40348 (2015/NN) implemented by the Kingdom of Spain (Support for electricity generation from renewable energy sources, cogeneration and waste).

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                     The action is dismissed.

                  2.

                     There is no need to rule on the applications to intervene of the Kingdom of Spain or EDP España.

                  3.

                     Abaco Energy, SA, and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex, shall bear their own costs and those incurred by the European Commission, with the exception of the costs relating to the applications to intervene.

                  4.

                     Abaco Energy and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex, the Commission, the Kingdom of Spain and EDP España shall bear their own costs relating to the applications to intervene.

         (1)  OJ C 221, 25.6.2018.


title: Case T-190/18: Order of the General Court of 25 March 2019 — Solwindet las Lomas v Commission (Actions for annulment — State aid — Aid scheme for renewable energies — Preliminary examination procedure — Decision finding the aid scheme compatible with the internal market — Action brought by a recipient — No interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility)

text:
               20.5.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 172/35

      Order of the General Court of 25 March 2019 — Solwindet las Lomas v Commission
      (Case T-190/18) (1)

      (Actions for annulment - State aid - Aid scheme for renewable energies - Preliminary examination procedure - Decision finding the aid scheme compatible with the internal market - Action brought by a recipient - No interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility)
      (2019/C 172/48)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Solwindet las Lomas, SL (Girona, Spain) (represented by: L. Sandberg-Mørch, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche, P. Němečková and S. Noë, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2017) 7384 final of 10 November 2017 relating to State aid SA.40348 (2015/NN) implemented by the Kingdom of Spain (Support for electricity generation from renewable energy sources, cogeneration and waste).

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                     The action is dismissed.

                  2.

                     There is no need to rule on the applications to intervene of the Kingdom of Spain or EDP España.

                  3.

                     Solwindet las Lomas, SL shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission, with the exception of the costs relating to the applications to intervene.

                  4.

                     Solwindet las Lomas, the Commission, the Kingdom of Spain and EDP España shall bear their own costs relating to the applications to intervene.

         (1)  OJ C 190, 4.6.2018.


title: Case T-631/18: Order of the General Court of 28 March 2019 — Herholz v EUIPO (#) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark # — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Claim for alteration — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               20.5.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 172/36

      Order of the General Court of 28 March 2019 — Herholz v EUIPO (#)
      (Case T-631/18) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark # - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Claim for alteration - Manifest inadmissibility)
      (2019/C 172/49)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Herholz Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG (Ahaus, Germany) (represented by: D. Sprenger, lawyer)

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

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 August 2018 (Case R 445/2018-2), regarding an application for registration of the word sign # as an EU trade mark

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                     The action is dismissed.

                  2.

                     Herholz Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG shall pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 445, 10.12.2018.


title: Case T-157/19: Action brought on 8 March 2019 –Șanli v Council

text:
               20.5.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 172/36

      Action brought on 8 March 2019 –Șanli v Council
      (Case T-157/19)
      (2019/C 172/50)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Parties

         Applicant: Dalokay Șanli (Rotterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: D. Gürses, lawyer)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the General Court should:

                  —

                  annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/24 of 8 January 2019 and Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/25 of 8 January 2019, and

                  —

                  order the Council to pay the 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: the placing of the PKK on the list is no longer justified since the PKK is not a terrorist organisation.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law: the applicant’s name should not be included on the list since he has never been convicted of terrorism offences or accused of such acts.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law: there is no evidence that the applicant has carried out terrorist activities or that he can be linked to such activities. There is no evidence behind the allegation that he carried out recruiting and financing activities.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law: the fundamental rights of defence of the applicant and the right to effective judicial protection have been breached in so far as he has not been able to defend himself against the allegations made against him.

                  5.

                  Fifth plea in law: the Council measures at issue are insufficiently reasoned considering that supporting evidence for the imposition of a sanction is lacking.

                  6.

                  Sixth plea in law: Article 1(4) of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP has been infringed in so far as no precise information or material in the relevant file indicating that a decision was taken by a competent authority within the meaning of that article has been produced.


title: Case T-162/19: Action brought on 11 March 2019 — Telefónica and Telefónica de España v Parliament and Council

text:
               20.5.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 172/38

      Action brought on 11 March 2019 — Telefónica and Telefónica de España v Parliament and Council
      (Case T-162/19)
      (2019/C 172/52)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicants: Telefónica, SA (Madrid, Spain), and Telefónica de España, SA (Madrid) (represented by: F. González Díaz, B. Langeheine and J. Blanco Carol, lawyers)

         Defendants: European Parliament and Council of the European Union

         Form of order sought

      The applicants claim that the Court should:

                  —

                  declare the application for annulment to be admissible;

                  —

                  annul Article 50 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1971 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1);

                  —

                  order the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to pay the applicants’ legal and other costs and expenses in relation to this matter.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of the action, the applicants rely on five pleas in law which are, in essence, either identical or similar to the pleas in law relied on in Case T-161/19, Deutsche Telekom v Parliament and Council.

         (1)  Regulation (EU) 2018/1971 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 establishing the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) and the Agency for Support for BEREC (BEREC Office), amending Regulation (EU) 2015/2120 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1211/2009 (OJ L 321, 17.12.2018, p. 1).


title: Case T-171/19: Action brought on 20 March 2019 — Hebberecht v EEAS

text:
               20.5.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 172/39

      Action brought on 20 March 2019 — Hebberecht v EEAS
      (Case T-171/19)
      (2019/C 172/53)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Chantal Hebberecht (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: K. Bicard, lawyer)

         Defendant: European External Action Service (EEAS)

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  declare Ms Hebberecht’s application admissible and well founded;

                  —

                  annul the penalty imposed on the applicant;

                  —

                  order the European External Action Service (EEAS) to pay the applicant EUR 36 000 in respect of arrears of salary and default interest;

                  —

                  order the EEAS to pay the applicant EUR 450 000 as compensation for injury to her health, material and non-material damage;

                  —

                  in the alternative, order the EEAS to pay the applicant EUR 300 000 as compensation for those damages;

                  —

                  in the further alternative, order the EEAS to pay the applicant EUR 150 000 as compensation for those damages;

                  —

                  in the still further alternative, order the EEAS to pay the applicant EUR 50 000 as compensation for those damages;

                  —

                  order the EEAS to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of the action, the applicant claims that the findings made against her by the tribunal de première instance du Hainaut (Court of First Instance, Hainaut, Belgium) in its judgment of 13 December 2017, relied on by the EEAS as constituting a particularly serious failure to comply with the obligations of officials, inter alia under Article 12 of the Staff Regulations, are incorrect. She also claims that the penalties imposed on her are discriminatory.


title: Case T-173/19: Action brought on 22 March 2019 — AV and AW v Parliament

text:
               20.5.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 172/40

      Action brought on 22 March 2019 — AV and AW v Parliament
      (Case T-173/19)
      (2019/C 172/54)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicants: AV and AW (represented by: L. Levi and S. Rodrigues, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Parliament

         Form of order sought

      The applicants claim that the Court should:

                  —

                  declare the present action admissible and well founded;

            consequently,

                  —

                  annul the contested decisions;

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay the costs in their entirety.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging infringement, first, of Article 78 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (OJ 2012 L 298, p.1) and, secondly, of the rights of the defence. The applicants submit in that regard that in the present case no administrative decision relating to a recovery order was brought to their attention before the adoption of the contested decisions concerning recovery of overpayments.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging that there was no valid legal basis, on the ground that the disciplinary context in which the contested decisions were made precluded those decisions being based on Article 85 of the Staff Regulations.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations. According to the applicants, even if the contested decisions could be based on Article 85 of the Staff Regulations, those decisions are vitiated by illegality, on the ground that the conditions for the application of that provision have not been met in the present case.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of sound administration and of the duty to have regard to the welfare of officials which stems from that principle, on the ground, inter alia, that the defendant did not take the trouble to verify the accuracy of the irregularity detected by the European Anti-fraud Office (OLAF).

                  5.

                  Fifth plea in law, alleging misuse of powers by the Parliament, in so far as it adopted the contested decisions mainly, if not exclusively, in order to achieve a purpose other than the purposes of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations, namely in order to satisfy the desire to penalise the applicants by means other than a disciplinary measure.


title: Case T-176/19: Action brought on 25 March 2019 — 3V Sigma/ECHA

text:
               20.5.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 172/41

      Action brought on 25 March 2019 — 3V Sigma/ECHA
      (Case T-176/19)
      (2019/C 172/55)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: 3V Sigma SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: C. Bryant and S. Hainsworth, Solicitors, and C. Krampitz, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Chemicals Agency

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  declare the application admissible;

                  —

                  annul the decision of the defendant’s board of appeal of 15 January 2019 regarding the substance evaluation of bis(2-ethylhexyl) 4,4’-{6-[4-tert-butylcarbamoyl) anilino]-1,3,5-triazine-2,4- diyldiimino}dibenzoate insofar as it (i) dismissed the applicant’s administrative appeal against the original decision and (ii) decided that the applicant must provide information on the OECD TG 308 study by 22 October 2020; and

                  —

                  order defendant 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 an error in law and a manifest error of assessment were committed in considering that the OECD TG 308 study is necessary.
                  The applicant submits that the defendant’s board of appeal would have erred in law and would have made a manifest error of assessment in failing to distinguish, on one hand, the conditions under which tests must be carried out in order to establish the existence or, otherwise, transformation and/or degradation products of a substance and, on the other hand, the conditions under which an assessment of the persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic properties or very persistent and very bioaccumulative properties of any such transformation and/or degradation product must be carried out. As a result, the applicant submits that the defendant’s board of appeal would have erroneously concluded that the OECD TG 308 study requested from the applicant was necessary.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant’s board of appeal erred in law and made a manifest error of assessment in determining that the designated testing temperatures are appropriate.
                  The applicant submits that the defendant’s board of appeal would have erred in law and would have made a manifest error of assessment in concluding that the designated testing temperature for the OECD TG 308 study, namely 20 oC, was appropriate. The defendant’s board of appeal would have failed to take into account the fact that performing the study at higher temperature would have a material impact on the concentrations of any transformation and/or degradation products formed and, consequently, on which, if any of them, would then be subject to a persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic/very persistent and very bioaccumulative assessment, thus critically undermining the appropriateness of the study.


title: Case T-182/19: Action brought on 28 March 2019 — Puma v EUIPO (SOFTFOAM)

text:
               20.5.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 172/42

      Action brought on 28 March 2019 — Puma v EUIPO (SOFTFOAM)
      (Case T-182/19)
      (2019/C 172/56)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: M. Schunke, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark SOFTFOAM — Application for registration No 17 363 318

         Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 January 2019 in Case R 1399/2018-2

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred before the Board of Appeal.

         Plea in law

                  —

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


title: Case T-184/19: Action brought on 27 March 2019 — Aurea Biolabs v EUIPO — Avizel (AUREA BIOLABS)

text:
               20.5.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 172/43

      Action brought on 27 March 2019 — Aurea Biolabs v EUIPO — Avizel (AUREA BIOLABS)
      (Case T-184/19)
      (2019/C 172/57)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Aurea Biolabs Pte Ltd (Cochin, India) (represented by: B. Brandreth, QC and L. Oommen, Solicitor)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Avizel SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

         Trade mark at issue: Application for figurative mark AUREA BIOLABS — Application for registration No 15 836 737

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 January 2019 in Case R 814/2018-2 (CORR)

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order the payment of the Applicant’s costs.

         Pleas in law

                  —

                  In support of its decision, the Board of Appeal relies on an invalid provision of law;

                  —

                  Had there been an obvious error of law, the appropriate course was to revoke the previous decision;

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and of the principles of natural justice.


title: Case T-185/19: Action brought on 28 March 2019 — Public.Resource.Org and Right to Know v Commission

text:
               20.5.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 172/44

      Action brought on 28 March 2019 — Public.Resource.Org and Right to Know v Commission
      (Case T-185/19)
      (2019/C 172/58)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicants: Public.Resource.Org, Inc. (Sebastopol, California, United States), Right to Know CLG (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: F. Logue, Solicitor, A. Grünwald, J. Hackl and C. Nüßing, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicants claim that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul decision C(2019) 639 final of the European Commission of 22 January 2019 (including the initial decision of 15 November 2018 with reference GROW/D3/ALR/dr (2018) 5993057);

                  —

                  in the alternative, refer the matter back to the European Commission; and

                  —

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

         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 the European Commission misinterpreted and/or misapplied Article 4(2), first indent, of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, (1) since this provision does not protect the requested harmonised standards:

                              —

                              No copyright protection of the requested harmonised standards is possible because they are part of EU Law;

                              —

                              The requested harmonised standards lack originality and therefore do not benefit from copyright protection;

                              —

                              The defendant did not demonstrate the alleged undermining of the commercial interest of the standardisation organization.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging that the European Commission infringed the last clause of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, since it wrongly denied that the applicants have an overriding public interest in access to the requested harmonised standards:

                              —

                              The concepts of the rule of law and fundamental rights require free access to the laws of the European Union;

                              —

                              The requested standards contain environmental information and particularly information on emissions into the environment and therefore must be released according to Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006; (2)

                              —

                              The defendant did not give adequate reasons for the denial of the overriding public interest.

         (1)  Regulation (EC) 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p.43).

         (2)  Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ 2006 L 264, p. 13).


title: Case T-187/19: Action brought on 29 March 2019 — Glaxo Group v EUIPO (colour mark purple)

text:
               20.5.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 172/45

      Action brought on 29 March 2019 — Glaxo Group v EUIPO (colour mark purple)
      (Case T-187/19)
      (2019/C 172/59)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Glaxo Group Ltd (Brentford, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, QC, S. Baran, Barrister and R. Jacob, Solicitor)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union colour mark purple (PANTONE: 2587C) — Application for registration No 14 596 951

         Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 January 2019 in Case R 1870/2017-1

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by finding that the sign lacked inherent distinctive character so that it could not validly be registered as a trade mark;

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and Article 7(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by failing to find that the sign had acquired distinctiveness through the use made of it by the applicant for annulment and/or with its authorisation.


title: Case C-80/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 4 February 2019 —E. E.

text:
               29.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/18

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 4 February 2019 —E. E.
      (Case C-80/19)
      (2019/C 148/18)
      Language of the case: Lithuanian

         Referring court

      Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: E. E.

         Other parties: A notary of the fourth notary office of the city of Kaunas, K.-D. E.

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Is a situation such as that in the case under examination — in which a Lithuanian national whose habitual place of residence on the day of her death was possibly in another Member State, but who in any event had never severed her links with her homeland, and who, inter alia, had drawn up, prior to her death, a will in Lithuania and left all of her assets to her heir, a Lithuanian national, and at the time of the opening of the succession it was established that the entire estate comprised immovable property located solely in Lithuania, and a national of that other Member State surviving his spouse expressed in clear terms his intention to waive all claims to the estate of the deceased, did not take part in the court proceedings brought in Lithuania, and consented to the jurisdiction of the Lithuanian courts and the application of Lithuanian law — to be regarded as a succession with cross-border implications within the meaning of Regulation No 650/2012 and to which that regulation must be applied?

                  2.

                  Is a Lithuanian notary who opens a succession case, issues a certificate of succession rights and carries out other actions necessary for the heir to assert his or her rights to be regarded as a ‘court’ within the meaning of Article 3(2) of Regulation No 650/2012, (1) regard being had to the fact that, in their activities, notaries respect the principles of impartiality and independence, their decisions are binding upon themselves or judicial authorities and their actions may be the subject of judicial proceedings?

                  3.

                  If the second question is answered in the affirmative, are certificates of succession rights issued by Lithuanian notaries to be regarded as being decisions within the meaning of Article 3(1)(g) of Regulation No 650/2012 and must jurisdiction for that reason be established for the purpose of issuing them?

                  4.

                  If the second question is answered in the negative, should the provisions of Articles 4 and 59 of Regulation No 650/2012 (together or separately, but without limitation to those articles) be construed as meaning that Lithuanian notaries are entitled to issue certificates of succession rights without following general rules on jurisdiction and that such certificates will be held to be authentic instruments which also give rise to legal consequences in other Member States?

                  5.

                  Must Article 4 of Regulation No 650/2012 (or other provisions thereof) be construed as meaning that the habitual place of residence of the deceased can be established in only one specific Member State?

                  6.

                  Should the provisions of Articles 4, 5, 7 and 22 of Regulation No 650/2012 (together or separately, but without limitation to those articles) be construed and applied in such a way that, in the present case, in accordance with the facts as set out in the first question, it must be concluded that the parties concerned agreed that the courts in Lithuania should have jurisdiction and that Lithuanian law should be applied?

         (1)  Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and acceptance and enforcement of authentic instruments in matters of succession and on the creation of a European Certificate of Succession (OJ 2012 L 201, p. 107).


title: Case T-301/16: Judgment of the General Court of 10 April 2019 — Jindal Saw and Jindal Saw Italia v Commission (Dumping — Imports of tubes and pipes of ductile cast iron originating in India — Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/388 — Regulation (EC) No 1255/2009 (replaced by Regulation (EU) 2016/1036) — Dumping margin — Determination of the export price — Association between an exporter and an importer — Reliable export price — Construction of the export price — Reasonable margin for selling, general and administrative costs — Reasonable margin for profit — Injury to the Union industry — Calculation of price undercutting and the injury margin — Causal link — Access to confidential data of the anti-dumping investigation — Rights of the defence)

text:
               3.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 187/61

      Judgment of the General Court of 10 April 2019 — Jindal Saw and Jindal Saw Italia v Commission
      (Case T-301/16) (1)

      (Dumping - Imports of tubes and pipes of ductile cast iron originating in India - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/388 - Regulation (EC) No 1255/2009 (replaced by Regulation (EU) 2016/1036) - Dumping margin - Determination of the export price - Association between an exporter and an importer - Reliable export price - Construction of the export price - Reasonable margin for selling, general and administrative costs - Reasonable margin for profit - Injury to the Union industry - Calculation of price undercutting and the injury margin - Causal link - Access to confidential data of the anti-dumping investigation - Rights of the defence)
      (2019/C 187/65)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicants: Jindal Saw Ltd (New Delhi, India), Jindal Saw Italia SpA (Trieste, Italy) (represented by: R. Antonini and E. Monard, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland and G. Luengo, acting as Agents)

         Intervener in support of the defendant: Saint-Gobain Pam (Pont-à-Mousson, France) (represented by: O. Prost, A. Coelho Dias and C. Bouvarel, lawyers)

         Re:

      Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/388 of 17 March 2016 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of tubes and pipes of ductile cast iron (also known as spheroidal graphite cast iron) originating in India (OJ 2016 L 73, p. 53), in so far as that regulation concerns the applicants.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Annuls Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/388 of 17 March 2016 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of tubes and pipes of ductile cast iron (also known as spheroidal graphite cast iron) originating in India, in so far as it concerns Jindal Saw Ltd;

                  2.

                     Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Jindal Saw and Jindal Saw Italia SpA;

                  3.

                     Orders Saint-Gobain Pam to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 314, 29.8.2016.


title: Case T-423/18: Judgment of the General Court of 7 May 2019 — Fissler v EUIPO (vita) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark vita — Absolute grounds for refusal — No distinctive character — Descriptiveness — Concept of characteristic — Name of a colour — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

text:
               24.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/34

      Judgment of the General Court of 7 May 2019 — Fissler v EUIPO (vita)
      (Case T-423/18) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark vita - Absolute grounds for refusal - No distinctive character - Descriptiveness - Concept of characteristic - Name of a colour - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
      (2019/C 213/34)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Fissler GmbH (Idar-Oberstein, Germany) (represented by: G. Hasselblatt and K. Middelhoff, lawyers)

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

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 March 2018 (Case R 1326/2017-5), relating to an application for registration of the word sign vita as an EU trade mark.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 28 March 2018 (Case R 1326/2017-5);

                  2.

                     Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 294, 20.8.2018.


title: Case T-274/19: Action brought on 24 April 2019 — Target Ventures Group v EUIPO — Target Partners (TARGET VENTURES)

text:
               24.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/68

      Action brought on 24 April 2019 — Target Ventures Group v EUIPO — Target Partners (TARGET VENTURES)
      (Case T-274/19)
      (2019/C 213/66)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Target Ventures Group Ltd (Road Town, British Virgin Islands) (represented by: T. Dolde, P. Homann, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Target Partners GmbH (Munich, Germany)

         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: Application for European Union word mark TARGET VENTURES — Application for registration No 13 685 565

         Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 February 2019 in Case R 1685/2017-2

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay the costs, including the costs incurred in the proceedings before the Cancellation Division and the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

         Pleas in law

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 53(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.


title: Case C-259/18: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 2 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil no 3 de Madrid — Spain) — Sociedad Estatal Correos y Telégrafos SA v Asendia Spain SLU (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 97/67/EC — Common rules for the development of the internal market in postal services — Provision of the universal postal service — Exclusive rights of the designated operator — Issue of means of payment for postage other than postage stamps)

text:
               1.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/9

      Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 2 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil no 3 de Madrid — Spain) — Sociedad Estatal Correos y Telégrafos SA v Asendia Spain SLU
      (Case C-259/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 97/67/EC - Common rules for the development of the internal market in postal services - Provision of the universal postal service - Exclusive rights of the designated operator - Issue of means of payment for postage other than postage stamps)
      (2019/C 220/12)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Referring court

      Juzgado de lo Mercantil no 3 de Madrid

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Sociedad Estatal Correos y Telégrafos SA

         Defendant: Asendia Spain SLU

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 7(1) and Article 8 of Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service, as amended by Directive 2008/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which guarantees to the postal operator designated for the provision of the universal postal service an exclusive right to distribute means of payment for postage other than postage stamps.

         (1)  OJ C 221, 25.6.2018.


title: Case C-143/19 P: Appeal brought on 20 February 2019 by Der Grüne Punkt — Duales System Deutschland GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 12 December 2018 in Case T-253/17 Der Grüne Punkt — Duales System Deutschland GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office

text:
               1.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/18

      Appeal brought on 20 February 2019 by Der Grüne Punkt — Duales System Deutschland GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 12 December 2018 in Case T-253/17 Der Grüne Punkt — Duales System Deutschland GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office
      (Case C-143/19 P)
      (2019/C 220/23)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Appellant: Der Grüne Punkt — Duales System Deutschland GmbH (represented by: P. Goldenbaum, Rechtsanwältin)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Form of order sought

      The appellant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  set aside the judgment under appeal of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 December 2018 in Case T-253/17;

                  —

                  grant the form of order sought at first instance and give a final ruling on the dispute or, in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Grounds of appeal and main arguments

      The appeal is based on an infringement of EU law, namely Articles 15(1), 51(1)(a) and 66(1) of Regulation No 207/2009. (1) The General Court wrongly found use preserving rights for the EU collective mark
 only in respect of packaging but not, however, in respect of goods in Classes 1 to 34, the product packaging of which is labelled with that mark. While it did correctly find that the public understood the use of the mark, it nevertheless erred in its assessment that this did not constitute use of the goods themselves.
      The appellant relies on incorrect legal analysis. It argues that the General Court erred in its legal analysis in so far as it found that the goods were not covered by the use of the collective mark and accepted use of the EU trade mark capable of preserving rights to that mark only in respect of packaging.
      For the goods to be covered, it is relevant that the sign indicates that the manufacturer of the goods is a member of the association, rather than indicating that the manufacturer of the packaging is a member of the association. The goods and their packaging are marketed as a sales unit.
      The indicative function of the sign is to allow disposal and recovery on the basis of the product manufacturer’s membership of the appellant’s licensing system by means of its particular dual system.
      The goods are covered by that use despite the fact that the marks of various undertakings are also simultaneously used on the relevant product packaging, as it is typical that collective marks are used alongside other marks.
      The function of a collective mark does not require that it always indicate specific qualities of goods. Rather, it is sufficient that the collective mark indicates membership of an association.
      The decision of the General Court failed sufficiently to take into account the differentiation between the various users of the sign set out in the appellant’s regulations governing use of the mark.
      The mark was also used for the purpose of creating an outlet and specifically — in accordance with the nature of a collective mark — in an effort to maintain and/or improve the market position of the collective as compared with other competing collectives, in particular competing dual systems, and/or the segment of undertakings not belonging to the association.

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


title: Case T-434/15: Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2019 — Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines and Others v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Non-contractual liability — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals)

text:
               1.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/30

      Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2019 — Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines and Others v Council
      (Case T-434/15) (1)

      (Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Non-contractual liability - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals)
      (2019/C 220/38)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicants: Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (Tehran, Iran) and the six other applicants whose names are set out in the Annex to the judgment (represented by: M. Taher, Solicitor, M. Malek QC, and R. Blakeley, Barrister)

         Defendants: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and H. Marcos Fraile, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application, pursuant to Articles 268 and 340 TFEU, for compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicants as a result of the inclusion of their names on the lists set out in Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39), in the Annex to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2010 of 26 July 2010 implementing Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 25), in the Annex to Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP of 25 October 2010 amending Decision 2010/413 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 81), in Annex VIII to Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 1) and in Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1).

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines and the other applicants whose names are set out in the Annex to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

         (1)  OJ C 328, 5.10.2015.


title: Case C-27/19 P: Appeal brought on 11 January 2019 by the Court of Auditors of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 8 November 2018 in Case T-874/16, RA v Court of Auditors

text:
               15.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 238/4

      Appeal brought on 11 January 2019 by the Court of Auditors of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 8 November 2018 in Case T-874/16, RA v Court of Auditors
      (Case C-27/19 P)
      (2019/C 238/05)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Appellant: Court of Auditors of the European Union (represented by: E. von Bardeleben, C. Lesauvage, acting as Agents)

         Other party to the proceedings: RA
      By order of 24 April 2019, the Court (Ninth Chamber) removed the case from the register of the Court.


title: Case C-214/19 P: Appeal brought on 7 March 2019 by achtung! GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 10 January 2019 in Case T-832/17 achtung! GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

text:
               15.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 238/4

      Appeal brought on 7 March 2019 by achtung! GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 10 January 2019 in Case T-832/17 achtung! GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
      (Case C-214/19 P)
      (2019/C 238/06)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Appellant: achtung! GmbH (represented by: G.J. Seelig and D. Bischof, Rechtsanwälte)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Form of order sought

      The appellant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  set aside the judgment of the General Court in Case T-832/17 of 10 January 2019;

                  —

                  grant the first and third heads of claim in the form of order sought at first instance in the application of 22 December 2017;

                  —

                  order EUIPO also to pay the further costs incurred in these proceedings.

         Grounds of appeal and main arguments

      The appellant relies on the following three grounds of appeal:

                  It is alleged in the first ground of appeal that the General Court erred in law in its assessment of the distinctive character of the mark applied for, ‘achtung!’ (word/figure), under Article 7(1)(b) of the European Union Trade Mark Regulation. (1) The General Court erred in law in so far as it accepted in the judgment under appeal that a sign was devoid of any distinctive character if, according to one possible meaning of that sign, it can be interpreted as advertising praise. Further, the General Court assessed the distinctive character of the term ‘Achtung’ instead of that of the sign applied for, ‘achtung!’. In addition, in the course of its assessment of distinctive character, the General Court made an incorrect assumption of fact without taking evidence on the material questions.

                  It is also alleged in the second ground of appeal that the General Court erred in law in its assessment of distinctive character under Article 7(1)(b) of the European Union Trade Mark Regulation. The General Court erred in law in the judgment under appeal in so far as it assumed that the fact that goods and services were the ‘subject of advertising’ was a suitable common indicator to justify the automatic conclusion that there is no distinctive character in respect of all goods and services covered by the application.

                  In the third ground of appeal it is alleged that the principles of equal treatment and sound administration have been breached. The General Court erred in law in so far as it failed to examine whether the Board of Appeal had considered to a sufficient degree the appellant’s relevant prior registrations and had examined in its decision whether the same conclusion should be reached or not. The complete failure to take into account identical prior registrations with EUIPO constitutes an error in law.

         (1)  Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark (OJ L 154, 16.6.2017, p. 1).


title: Case C-240/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo No 2 de Ourense (Spain) lodged on 20 March 2019 — FA v Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS)

text:
               15.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 238/5

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo No 2 de Ourense (Spain) lodged on 20 March 2019 — FA v Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS)
      (Case C-240/19)
      (2019/C 238/07)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Referring court

      Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo No 2 de Ourense

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: FA

         Defendant: Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS)

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Where a national provision, such as Article 2(2)(a) of Order TAS 2865/2003, requires that a person must have left a social security scheme in order to be eligible for voluntary insurance or optional continued insurance, must the person concerned have left a Spanish social security scheme or, on the other hand, in accordance with the principle of equal treatment of facts laid down in Article 5(b) of Regulation No 883/2004, (1) must the Spanish competent institution take account of the fact that the person concerned has left a similar social security scheme of another Member State, as though that had occurred in Spain?

                  2.

                  Where a national provision, such as Article 3(3) of Order TAS 2865/2003, requires evidence of contribution periods as a condition of eligibility for voluntary insurance or optional continued insurance, is it necessary for the person concerned to have been subject to the Spanish legislation at some earlier stage or, in accordance with Article 6 of Regulation No 883/2004, must the competent Spanish institution take account of contribution periods completed under the legislation of another Member State, as though those contribution periods were completed in Spain?

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


title: Case C-268/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia n.o 7 de Orense (Spain) lodged on 29 March 2019 — UP v Banco Pastor, S.A.U.

text:
               15.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 238/6

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia n.o 7 de Orense (Spain) lodged on 29 March 2019 — UP v Banco Pastor, S.A.U.
      (Case C-268/19)
      (2019/C 238/08)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Referring court

      Juzgado de Primera Instancia n.o 7 de Orense

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: UP

         Defendant: Banco Pastor, S.A.U.

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Must the non-binding effect laid down in Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13 (1) be interpreted as precluding the validity of an agreement amending an unfair term concluded between a consumer and a seller or supplier in circumstances in which (a) the unfair term had not been declared null and void when that amending agreement was concluded, nor had its lack of validity been identified and nor had the consumer been advised of the possibility that that term might be declared unfair, and (b) the amending agreement is not in the nature of a settlement? In that situation, is it material to the validity of that agreement that the consumer has negotiated the wording of the amendment?

                  2.

                  Must Articles 3(1) and 4 of Directive 93/13 be interpreted as meaning that, for a term laid down by an agreement concluded between a consumer and a seller or supplier, which amends an earlier unfair term, to be considered transparent, the consumer must have been informed, when concluding the amending agreement, that the original term was unfair or, as the case may be, that there is a possibility that that term might be declared unfair? In that connection, does the fact that the new term was individually negotiated preclude, in any event, a review of whether that term is unfair?

         (1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).


title: Case C-269/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Romania) lodged on 29 March 2019 — Banca B. SA v A. A. A.

text:
               15.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 238/7

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Romania) lodged on 29 March 2019 — Banca B. SA v A. A. A.
      (Case C-269/19)
      (2019/C 238/09)
      Language of the case: Romanian

         Referring court

      Curtea de Apel Cluj

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: Banca B. SA

         Respondent: A. A. A.

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Must Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC (1) be interpreted as meaning that, after a term establishing the mechanism for determining the variable rate of interest by the formula ‘fixed margin and the benchmark interest applied by a bank on the basis of non-transparent criteria’ has been found to be unfair in connection with a credit agreement applying a fixed interest rate limited to the first year and a variable rate for the subsequent years, in accordance with the above formula, the national court may vary the agreement by imposing a method for calculating the variable rate of interest on the basis of transparent benchmarks (LIBOR/EURIBOR) and the bank’s fixed margin, in the light of the facts contained in the credit agreement, for the purposes of ensuring better consumer protection?

                  2.

                  If the answer to that question is in the negative, must Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC be interpreted as meaning that, after a term such as that mentioned above has been found to be unfair, the national court may apply, by judicial process, a fixed rate of interest by reference to the fixed margin agreed for the second year of the agreement or to the fixed rate of interest for the first year?

                  3.

                  If the answer to that question is in the negative, must Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC and the principle of effectiveness be interpreted as precluding the national court, after a term such as that mentioned above has been found to be unfair, from instructing the parties to conduct negotiations with a view to fixing a new interest rate, without setting any benchmarks?

                  4.

                  If the answer to that question is in the negative, what possible remedies are there to ensure that consumers are protected in line with Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC?

         (1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).


title: Case C-283/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 4 April 2019 — EUflight.de GmbH v TUIfly GmbH

text:
               15.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 238/8

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 4 April 2019 — EUflight.de GmbH v TUIfly GmbH
      (Case C-283/19)
      (2019/C 238/10)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Amtsgericht Hannover

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: EUflight.de GmbH

         Defendant: TUIfly GmbH
      By decision of the President of the Court of Justice of 23 May 2019 the case was removed from the Court’s register.