title: Case T-129/18: Action brought on 01 March 2018 — HMV (Brands) v EUIPO — Our Price Records (OUR PRICE)

text:
               7.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/54

         Action brought on 01 March 2018 — HMV (Brands) v EUIPO — Our Price Records (OUR PRICE)
   (Case T-129/18)
   (2018/C 161/62)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: HMV (Brands) Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Hicks, and N. Zweck, Barristers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Our Price Records Ltd (London)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘OUR PRICE’ — Application for registration No 13 636 998

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 December 2017 in Case R 838/2017-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs;

               —

               order Our Price Records Limited to pay the costs (if it intervenes in this case);
               AND EITHER

               —

               allow HMV’s opposition in its entirety
               OR

               —

               remit the case for consideration by EUIPO in light of the annulment of the contested decision.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation No 2017/1001.


title: Case T-174/18: Action brought on 8 March 2018 — Mutondo v Council

text:
               7.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/67

         Action brought on 8 March 2018 — Mutondo v Council
   (Case T-174/18)
   (2018/C 161/82)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Kalev Mutondo (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, M. Forgeois and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2282 of 11 December 2017 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in so far as the applicant remains at No 16 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP and No 16 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005;

               —

               Rule that the provisions of Articles 3(2)(b) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP, as amended by Decision 2016/2231/CFSP, and 2b(1)(b) of Regulation [No] 1183/2005/EC are unlawful;

               —

               Order the Council to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law, which are in essence identical or similar to those raised in Case T-163/18, Amisi Kumba v Council.


title: Case C-96/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 9 February 2018 — Sociale Verzekeringsbank; other party: C.E. Franzen

text:
               7.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/22

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 9 February 2018 — Sociale Verzekeringsbank; other party: C.E. Franzen
   (Case C-96/18)
   (2018/C 161/25)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Sociale Verzekeringsbank (Svb)

      Other party: C.E. Franzen

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Articles 45 TFEU and 48 TFEU be interpreted as meaning that, in a case such as that at issue here, those provisions preclude a national rule such as Article 6a, introductory sentence and (b), of the AKW? (1) That rule means that a resident of the Netherlands is not insured for purposes of the social security scheme of that State of residence if that resident works in another Member State and is subject to the social security legislation of the State of employment on the basis of Article 13 of Regulation No 1408/71. (2) The present case is characterised by the fact that, on the basis of the legislation of the State of employment, the interested party does not qualify for child benefit because of the limited scope of her work there?

               2.

               For the purpose of the answer to Question 1, is it significant that the possibility existed for the interested party to request the Svb to conclude an agreement as referred to in Article 17 of Regulation No 1408/71?

      (1)  General Law on Child Benefits.

      (2)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (OJ English Special Edition 1971(II), p 416).


title: Case T-140/18: Action brought on 28 February 2018 — LMP Lichttechnik Vertriebs v EUIPO (LITECRAFT)

text:
               7.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/55

         Action brought on 28 February 2018 — LMP Lichttechnik Vertriebs v EUIPO (LITECRAFT)
   (Case T-140/18)
   (2018/C 161/63)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: LMP Lichttechnik Vertriebs GmbH (Ibbenbüren, Germany) (represented by: R. Plegge, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘LITECRAFT’ — Application for registration No 15 282 635

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 January 2018 in Case R 699/2017-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-175/18: Action brought on 8 March 2018 — Ruhorimbere v Council

text:
               7.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/67

         Action brought on 8 March 2018 — Ruhorimbere v Council
   (Case T-175/18)
   (2018/C 161/83)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Éric Ruhorimbere (Mbujimayi, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, M. Forgeois and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2282 of 11 December 2017 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in so far as the applicant remains at No 14 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP and No 14 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005;

               —

               Rule that the provisions of Articles 3(2)(b) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP, as amended by Decision 2016/2231/CFSP, and 2b(1)(b) of Regulation [No] 1183/2005/EC are unlawful;

               —

               Order the Council to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law, which are in essence identical or similar to those raised in Case T-163/18, Amisi Kumba v Council.


title: Case T-143/18: Action brought on 1 March 2018 — Société générale v ECB

text:
               7.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/56

         Action brought on 1 March 2018 — Société générale v ECB
   (Case T-143/18)
   (2018/C 161/64)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Société générale (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Gosset-Grainville, M. Trabucchi and P. Kupka, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Central Bank

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Article 4 of ECB Decision No ECB/SSM/2017 — O2RNE8IBXP4R0TD8PU41/174 of 19 December 2017 and Article 3 of its Annex A, in so far as it prescribes measures to be taken regarding irrevocable payment commitments in respect of the deposit guarantee schemes or the resolution funds;

               —

               order the ECB to pay all the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging there is no legal basis for the adoption of the contested decision. According to the applicant, the ECB has no jurisdiction to impose a prudential requirement of general scope and has not conducted an individual and detailed assessment of the applicant’s situation as required by the applicable legislation.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by an error of law in that the ECB wrongly interpreted the EU legislation establishing the possibility for credit institutions to use irrevocable payment commitments and, consequently, rendered those provisions ineffective.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by a manifest error in the assessment of the risks allegedly posed by the irrevocable payment commitments having regard to Article 16 of Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions (OJ 2013 L 287, p 63).

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging a failure to state reasons, in so far as the ECB is, it is claimed, subject to an enhanced obligation to state reasons and the contested decision was inadequately reasoned.


title: Case C-149/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa (Portugal) lodged on 26 February 2018 — Agostinho da Silva Martins v Dekra Claims Services Portugal SA

text:
               7.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/41

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa (Portugal) lodged on 26 February 2018 — Agostinho da Silva Martins v Dekra Claims Services Portugal SA
   (Case C-149/18)
   (2018/C 161/45)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Agostinho da Silva Martins

      Respondent: Dekra Claims Services Portugal SA

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must it be understood that the national legislation in force in Portugal prevails as an overriding, mandatory rule within the meaning of Article 16 of the Rome II Regulation? (1)

               2.

               Does that rule constitute a provision of Community law laying down a conflict-of-laws rule within the meaning of Article 27 of the Rome II Regulation?

               3.

               In the light of Article 28 of Directive 2009/103/EC, (2) must it be concluded that the limitation period set out in Article 498(3) of the Portuguese Civil Code is applicable where a Portuguese citizen suffers a traffic accident in Spain?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II) (OJ 2007 L 199, p. 40).

      (2)  Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability (OJ 2009 L 263, p. 11).


title: Case C-560/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud České republiky — Czech Republic) — E.ON Czech Holding AG v Michael Dědouch, Petr Streitberg, Pavel Suda (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters — Exclusive jurisdiction — Article 22(2) — Validity of decisions of the organs of companies or legal persons having their seat in the territory of a Member State — Exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of that Member State — Decision of the general meeting of a company ordering the compulsory transfer to that company’s principal shareholder of the shares held by the company’s minority shareholders and determining the consideration to be paid to them by the principal shareholder — Judicial procedure for reviewing the reasonableness of that consideration)

text:
               7.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/9

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud České republiky — Czech Republic) — E.ON Czech Holding AG v Michael Dědouch, Petr Streitberg, Pavel Suda
   (Case C-560/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters - Exclusive jurisdiction - Article 22(2) - Validity of decisions of the organs of companies or legal persons having their seat in the territory of a Member State - Exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of that Member State - Decision of the general meeting of a company ordering the compulsory transfer to that company’s principal shareholder of the shares held by the company’s minority shareholders and determining the consideration to be paid to them by the principal shareholder - Judicial procedure for reviewing the reasonableness of that consideration))
   (2018/C 161/10)
   Language of the case: Czech

      Referring court

   Nejvyšší soud České republiky

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: E.ON Czech Holding AG

      Defendants: Michael Dědouch, Petr Streitberg, Pavel Suda

      Intervener: Jihočeská plynárenská, a.s.

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 22(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that an action, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, for review of the reasonableness of the consideration that the principal shareholder of a company is required to pay to the minority shareholders of that company in the event of the compulsory transfer of their shares to that principal shareholder comes within the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State in which that company is established.

      (1)  OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.


title: Case T-144/18: Action brought on 1 March 2018 — Crédit Agricole and Others v ECB

text:
               7.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/57

         Action brought on 1 March 2018 — Crédit Agricole and Others v ECB
   (Case T-144/18)
   (2018/C 161/65)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Crédit Agricole SA (Montrouge, France) and 69 other applicants (represented by: A. Gosset-Grainville, M. Trabucchi and P. Kupka, lawyers)

      Defendants: European Central Bank

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul Article 9 of ECB Decision No ECB/SSM/2017 — 969500TJ5KRTCJQWXH05/380 of 19 December 2017 and Article 3 of its Annex A, in so far as it prescribes measures to be taken regarding irrevocable payment commitments in respect of the deposit guarantee schemes or the resolution funds;

               —

               order the ECB to pay all the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-143/18, Societe Generale v ECB.


title: Case C-152/18 P: Appeal brought on 23 February 2018 by Crédit mutuel Arkéa against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 13 December 2017 in Case T-712/15, Crédit mutuel Arkéa v European Central Bank

text:
               7.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/41

         Appeal brought on 23 February 2018 by Crédit mutuel Arkéa against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 13 December 2017 in Case T-712/15, Crédit mutuel Arkéa v European Central Bank
   (Case C-152/18 P)
   (2018/C 161/46)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Crédit mutuel Arkéa (represented by: H. Savoie, avocat)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Central Bank, European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Set aside the judgment of 13 December 2017 (T-712/15) by which the General Court dismissed Crédit mutuel Arkéa’s application seeking annulment of the decision of the European Central Bank of 5 October 2015 (ECB/SSM/2015 — 9695000CG7B84NLR5984/28) setting the prudential requirements applicable to Groupe Crédit mutuel.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   In support of its appeal, the appellant relies on two grounds, alleging that:

               —

               the General Court erred in law when it held that Article 2(21)(c) of the SSM Framework Regulation allowed the ECB to exercise prudential supervision on a consolidated basis in respect of institutions affiliated to a central body despite the fact that that body does not have credit institution status;

               —

               the General Court erred in its legal characterisation of the facts when it held that Crédit mutuel is a supervised group since it meets the criteria set out in Article 10(1) of Regulation No 575/2013. (1)

      (1)  Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (OJ 2013 L 176, p. 1).


title: Case T-176/18: Action brought on 8 March 2018 — Mende Omalanga v Council

text:
               7.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/68

         Action brought on 8 March 2018 — Mende Omalanga v Council
   (Case T-176/18)
   (2018/C 161/84)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Lambert Mende Omalanga (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, M. Forgeois and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2282 of 11 December 2017 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in so far as the applicant remains at No 12 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP and No 12 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005;

               —

               Rule that the provisions of Articles 3(2)(b) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP, as amended by Decision 2016/2231/CFSP, and 2b(1)(b) of Regulation [No] 1183/2005/EC are unlawful;

               —

               Order the Council to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law, which are in essence identical or similar to those raised in Case T-163/18, Amisi Kumba v Council.


title: Case T-145/18: Action brought on 1 March 2018 — Confédération nationale du Crédit mutuel and Others v ECB

text:
               7.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/57

         Action brought on 1 March 2018 — Confédération nationale du Crédit mutuel and Others v ECB
   (Case T-145/18)
   (2018/C 161/66)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Confédération nationale du Crédit mutuel (Paris, France) and 37 other applicants (represented by: A. Gosset-Grainville, M. Trabucchi and P. Kupka, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Central Bank

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul Article 8 of ECB Decision No ECB/SSM/2017 — 9695000CG7B84NLR5984/207 of 19 December 2017, in so far as it prescribes measures to be taken regarding irrevocable payment commitments in respect of the deposit guarantee schemes or the resolution funds;

               —

               order the ECB to pay all the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-143/18, Societe Generale v ECB.


title: Case C-100/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 12 February 2018 — Línea Directa Aseguradora, S.A. v Segurcaixa, Sociedad Anónima de Seguros y Reaseguros

text:
               7.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/23

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 12 February 2018 — Línea Directa Aseguradora, S.A. v Segurcaixa, Sociedad Anónima de Seguros y Reaseguros
   (Case C-100/18)
   (2018/C 161/26)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Supremo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Línea Directa Aseguradora, S.A.

      Defendant: Segurcaixa, Sociedad Anónima de Seguros y Reaseguros

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Article 3 of Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability, (1) preclude an interpretation that includes in the compulsory insurance cover the damage caused by a fire in a stationary vehicle when the fire has its origin in the mechanisms necessary to performing the transport function of the vehicle?

               2.

               If the answer to the question above is negative, does Article 3 of Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability, preclude an interpretation that includes in the compulsory insurance cover the damage caused by a fire in a vehicle when the fire cannot be linked to previous motion, in such a way that no connection with a journey can be discerned?

               3.

               If the answer to the second question is negative, does Article 3 of Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability, preclude an interpretation that includes in the compulsory insurance cover the damage caused by a fire in a vehicle when the vehicle is parked in a closed private garage?

      (1)  OJ 2009 L 263, p. 11.


title: Case T-146/18: Action brought on 1 March 2018 — BPCE and Others v ECB

text:
               7.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/58

         Action brought on 1 March 2018 — BPCE and Others v ECB
   (Case T-146/18)
   (2018/C 161/67)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: BPCE (Paris, France) and 36 other applicants (represented by: A. Gosset-Grainville, M. Trabucchi and P. Kupka, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Central Bank

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul Article 4 of ECB Decision No ECB/SSM/2017 — 9695005MSX1OYEMGDF46/338 (taken together with its annex) of 19 December 2017, in so far as it prescribes measures to be taken regarding irrevocable payment commitments in respect of the deposit guarantee schemes or the resolution funds;

               —

               order the ECB to pay all the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-143/18, Societe Generale v ECB.


title: Case C-153/18 P: Appeal brought on 23 February 2018 by Crédit mutuel Arkéa against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 13 December 2017 in Case T-52/16, Crédit mutuel Arkéa v European Central Bank

text:
               7.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/42

         Appeal brought on 23 February 2018 by Crédit mutuel Arkéa against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 13 December 2017 in Case T-52/16, Crédit mutuel Arkéa v European Central Bank
   (Case C-153/18 P)
   (2018/C 161/47)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Crédit mutuel Arkéa (represented by: H. Savoie, avocat)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Central Bank, European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Set aside the judgment of 13 December 2017 (T-52/16) by which the General Court dismissed Crédit mutuel Arkéa’s application seeking annulment of the decision of the European Central Bank of 4 December 2015 (ECB/SSM/2015 — 9695000CG7B84NLR5984/40) setting the prudential requirements applicable to Groupe Crédit mutual.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   In support of its appeal, the appellant relies on two grounds, alleging that:

               —

               the General Court erred in law when it held that Article 2(21)(c) of the SSM Framework Regulation allowed the ECB to exercise prudential supervision on a consolidated basis in respect of institutions affiliated to a central body despite the fact that that body does not have credit institution status;

               —

               the General Court erred in its legal characterisation of the facts when it held that Crédit mutuel is a supervised group since it meets the criteria set out in Article 10(1) of Regulation No 575/2013. (1)

      (1)  Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (OJ 2013 L 176, p. 1).


title: Case T-149/18: Action brought on 1 March 2018 — Arkéa Direct Bank and Others v ECB

text:
               7.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/58

         Action brought on 1 March 2018 — Arkéa Direct Bank and Others v ECB
   (Case T-149/18)
   (2018/C 161/68)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Arkéa Direct Bank (Puteaux, France), Caisse de Bretagne de Crédit Mutuel Agricole (Le Relecq Kerhuon, France), Crédit Mutuel Arkéa (Le Relecq Kerhuon), Crédit foncier et communal d’Alsace et de Lorraine-banque (Strasbourg, France), Fédéral Finance (Le Relecq Kerhuon), Arkéa Home Loans SFH (Brest, France), Arkéa Banking Services (Paris, France), Arkéa Public Sector SCF (Le Relecq Kerhuon), Arkéa Banque Entreprises et Institutionnels (Le Relecq Kerhuon), Keytrade Bank Luxembourg SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: A. Gosset-Grainville, M. Trabucchi and P. Kupka, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Central Bank

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul Article 8 of ECB Decision No ECB/SSM/2017 — 9695000CG7B84NLR5984/207 of 19 December 2017, in so far as it prescribes measures to be taken regarding irrevocable payment commitments in respect of the deposit guarantee schemes or the resolution funds;

               —

               order the ECB to pay all the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-143/18, Societe Generale v ECB.


title: Case C-579/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 March 2018 — European Commission v FIH Holding A/S, FIH Erhvervsbank A/S (Appeal — State aid — Definition of ‘aid’ — Definition of ‘economic advantage’ — Market economy operator principle — Conditions governing applicability and application — Financial crisis — Successive bank bail outs — Whether account to be taken, in the assessment of the second bail out, of the risks arising from commitments entered into by a Member State in the first bail out)

text:
               7.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/10

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 March 2018 — European Commission v FIH Holding A/S, FIH Erhvervsbank A/S
   (Case C-579/16 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - State aid - Definition of ‘aid’ - Definition of ‘economic advantage’ - Market economy operator principle - Conditions governing applicability and application - Financial crisis - Successive bank bail outs - Whether account to be taken, in the assessment of the second bail out, of the risks arising from commitments entered into by a Member State in the first bail out))
   (2018/C 161/11)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouchagiar, L. Flynn and K. Blanck-Putz, acting as Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: FIH Holding A/S, FIH Erhvervsbank A/S (represented by: O. Koktvedgaard, advokat)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016, FIH Holding and FIH Erhvervsbank v Commission (T-386/14, EU:T:2016:474);

               2.

               Dismisses the first plea in the action before the General Court;

               3.

               Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for it to give judgment on the second plea in law;

               4.

               Reserves the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 14, 16.1.2017.


title: Case C-202/18: Action brought on 16 March 2018 — Ilmārs Rimšēvičs v Republic of Latvia

text:
               7.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/43

         Action brought on 16 March 2018 — Ilmārs Rimšēvičs v Republic of Latvia
   (Case C-202/18)
   (2018/C 161/48)
   Language of the case: Latvian

      Parties

      Applicant: Ilmārs Rimšēvičs (represented by: S. Vārpiņš, I. Pazare and M. Kvēps, lawyers)

      Defendant: Republic of Latvia

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that he was unlawfully removed from the office of Governor of the Bank of Latvia by the decision of 19 February 2018 adopted by the Korupcijas novēršanas un apkarošanas birojs (Office for the prevention and fight against corruption), in the name of the Republic of Latvia, on the implementation of security measures;

               —

               declare unlawful the security measure prohibiting the exercise of certain professional activities — on the basis of which the applicant was prohibited from performing the functions of Governor of the Bank of Latvia and from exercising the rights associated with that office — which was imposed on the applicant pursuant to the decision of 19 February 2018 adopted by the Office for the prevention and fight against corruption, in the name of the Republic of Latvia, on the implementation of security measures;

               —

               declare unlawful the restrictions on performing the functions of a member of the Governing Council of the European Central Bank and exercising the rights associated with that office, which were imposed on the applicant pursuant to the decision of 19 February 2018 adopted by the Office for the prevention and fight against corruption, in the name of the Republic of Latvia, on the implementation of security measures.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               The applicant challenges the unlawful decision of 19 February 2018 adopted by the investigating authority of the Latvian State (that is, the Office for the prevention and fight against corruption, which is part of the executive) on the basis of which he was removed, indefinitely, from his position as Governor of the Bank of Latvia. The decision to remove him was adopted in the name of the Latvian State. On being removed from the office of Governor of the Bank of Latvia, the applicant also lost, automatically, his position as member of the Governing Council of the European Central Bank.

               2.

               In removing the applicant from office, the following infringements at least were committed.

               3.

               In the first place, removing the applicant from his posts as Governor of the Bank of Latvia and member of the Governing Council of the European Central Bank constituted a breach of Article 14.2 of Protocol No 4 on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank annexed to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, given that, at the time of his removal, none of the conditions specified in that provision for the removal of a governor of a national central bank were satisfied (namely, that the governor no longer fulfil the conditions required for the performance of his duties or have been guilty of serious misconduct).

               4.

               In the second place, removing the applicant from his post as Governor of the Bank of Latvia also breached Article 22 of the likums ‘Par Latvijas Banku’ (Law on the Bank of Latvia), the national measure implementing the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. At the time the decision at issue was adopted, none of the conditions set out in that article for the removal of the Governor of the Bank of Latvia were satisfied (first, voluntary resignation, secondly, the condition laid down in Article 14.2 of the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank relating to serious misconduct, in which case the Parliament may decide to remove the Governor of the Bank of Latvia from office once the conviction has become final, or, thirdly, the other conditions specified in Article 14.2 of that statute). In addition, although in accordance with the Law on the Bank of Latvia only the Parliament of the Republic of Latvia may lawfully remove the Governor of the Bank of Latvia from office, the applicant was not removed by that Parliament, but by the investigating authority of the Latvian State, which is part of the executive.

               5.

               In the third place, removing the applicant from his post as Governor of the Bank of Latvia was based on a misinterpretation of Union law by the Office for the prevention and fight against corruption in so far as it stated that the applicant did not perform his functions on the Governing Council of the European Central Bank independently and in the interest of the European Central Bank, but rather performed those functions as Governor of the Bank of Latvia and acted in the interest of the Bank of Latvia. However, Article 13 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union provides that the European Central Bank is an institution of the European Union.
               In the exercise of their functions, officials of EU institutions may exercise only the powers provided for in Union legislation and may act only in the interest of those institutions. It is not for national legislation to define the functions of officials of EU institutions and, accordingly, when performing the functions of an official of an EU institution, it is not possible to exercise powers conferred by national legal acts.
               Under Article 130 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which guarantees the independence of the European Central Bank, the Governor of the Bank of Latvia is precluded, in exercising his functions as a member of the Governing Council of the European Central Bank, from acting as a representative of the Bank of Latvia and acting (strictly) in the interest of the Bank of Latvia or the Republic of Latvia.


title: Case T-177/18: Action brought on 8 March 2018 — Kazembe Musonda v Council

text:
               7.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/68

         Action brought on 8 March 2018 — Kazembe Musonda v Council
   (Case T-177/18)
   (2018/C 161/85)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Jean-Claude Kazembe Musonda (Lubumbashi, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, M. Forgeois and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2282 of 11 December 2017 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in so far as the applicant remains at No 11 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP and No 11 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005;

               —

               Rule that the provisions of Articles 3(2)(b) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP, as amended by Decision 2016/2231/CFSP, and 2b(1)(b) of Regulation [No] 1183/2005/EC are unlawful;

               —

               Order the Council to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law, which are in essence identical or similar to those raised in Case T-163/18, Amisi Kumba v Council.


title: Case C-238/18: Action brought on 3 April 2018 — European Central Bank v Republic of Latvia

text:
               7.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/44

         Action brought on 3 April 2018 — European Central Bank v Republic of Latvia
   (Case C-238/18)
   (2018/C 161/49)
   Language of the case: Latvian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Central Bank (represented by: C. Zilioli, C. Kroppenstedt and K. Kaiser, acting as Agents, and D. Sarmiento Ramírez-Escudero, lawyer)

      Defendant: Republic of Latvia

      Form of order sought

   The European Central Bank claims that the Court should:

               —

               request the Republic of Latvia, in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 24 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and Article 62 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, to provide all relevant information pertaining to the ongoing investigation by the Korupcijas novēršanas an apkarošanas birojs (Office for the prevention and fight against corruption) of the Governor of the Bank of Latvia;

               —

               declare, pursuant to Article 14.2 of the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, that the Republic of Latvia has infringed the second paragraph of that provision:

                           —

                           by removing from office the Governor of the Bank of Latvia before the handing down of a conviction from an independent court that examined the merits of the case and

                           —

                           without, if so confirmed by the evidence presented by the Republic of Latvia, exceptional circumstances justifying that removal;

               —

               order the Republic of Latvia to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The ECB claims that the Republic of Latvia has infringed the second paragraph of Article 14.2 of the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank in removing from office the Governor of the Bank of Latvia by way of a provisional security measure, without the handing down of a conviction from an independent court that examined the merits of the case.


title: Case C-103/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 8 de Madrid (Spain) lodged on 13 February 2018 — Domingo Sánchez Ruiz v Comunidad de Madrid (Servicio Madrileño de Salud)

text:
               7.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/23

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 8 de Madrid (Spain) lodged on 13 February 2018 — Domingo Sánchez Ruiz v Comunidad de Madrid (Servicio Madrileño de Salud)
   (Case C-103/18)
   (2018/C 161/27)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 8 de Madrid

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Domingo Sánchez Ruiz

      Defendant: Comunidad de Madrid (Servicio Madrileño de Salud)

      Questions referred

               1.

               Can a situation such as that described in the present case (in which the public-sector employer fails to observe the statutory time limits and thus either permits successive temporary contracts or preserves the temporary nature of the appointment by changing the nature of the appointment from occasional to interim or replacement) be considered an abusive use of successive appointments and therefore be regarded as a situation described in Clause 5 of the Framework Agreement annexed to Directive 1999/70/EC? (1)

               2.

               Must the provisions in the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work in the Annex to Directive 1999/70/EC, in conjunction with the principle of effectiveness, be interpreted as precluding national procedural rules that require a fixed-term worker actively to challenge or appeal against all the successive appointments and terminations of employment as the only way in which to benefit from the protection of the EU Directive and claim the rights conferred on him by EU law?

               3.

               In view of the fact that, in the public sector and in the provision of essential services, the necessity of providing cover for vacancies, sickness, holidays … is essentially ‘permanent’, and given that the concept of ‘objective reason’ justifying a fixed-term appointment has to be delimited:

                           a)

                           Can it be held to be contrary to Directive 1999/70/EC (Clause 5(1)(a)) and, therefore, that there is no objective reason, when a fixed-term worker is employed under an uninterrupted succession of ‘contratos de interinidad’ (temporary replacement contracts), working all or nearly all the days of the year, under a succession of consecutive appointments/engagements that continue on a completely stable basis for years, and the stated grounds for engaging the worker are always satisfied?

                           b)

                           Must the need be considered permanent rather than temporary, and therefore not to be covered as an ‘objective reason’ within the meaning of Clause 5(1)(a), having regard either to the parameters described above, that is to say, the existence of countless appointments and engagements that extend over a period of years, or to the existence of a structural defect that is reflected in the percentage of temporary appointments in the sector in question, when those needs are as a general rule always met by temporary workers, so that this has become an essential and long-term element of the operation of the public service?

                           c)

                           Or is it to be understood that, in essence, in order to determine the permitted limit for temporary appointments, regard must be had only to the letter of the legislation that covers the employment of such fixed-term workers, when it states that they may [Or. 26] be taken on on grounds of necessity, urgency or for the development of programmes of a temporary, cyclical or extraordinary nature: in short, that in order for an objective reason to be deemed to exist, such employment must meet these exceptional circumstances, and that this ceases to be the case, and use therefore constitutes misuse, when it is no longer isolated, occasional or ad hoc?

               4.

               Is it compatible with the Framework Directive annexed to Directive 1999/70/EC to regard grounds of need, urgency or the development of programmes of a temporary, interim or extraordinary nature as an objective reason for appointing and successively reappointing IT specialists on temporary regulated terms where these public employees are performing the normal functions of permanent regulated employees on a permanent and regular basis, and the employing Administration neither establishes maximum limits to such appointments nor fulfils its legal obligations to use permanent staff to cover these posts and meet these needs, and no equivalent measure is established to prevent and avoid misuse of successive temporary appointments, with the result that IT specialists employed on temporary regulated terms continue to carry out these duties for periods that, in the present case, amount to an uninterrupted duration of 17 years?

               5.

               Are the provisions in the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work in the Annex to Directive 1999/70/EC and the interpretation of that Agreement by the CJEU compatible with the case-law of the Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court, Spain), insofar as it fixes the existence of an objective reason for an appointment by reference to the time limit to the appointment, without regard to other parameters, or finds that there can be no comparison made with a career public official because of the different legal rules covering them and different access routes or because career officials are permanently established but employees recruited to cover vacancies hold temporary appointments?

               6.

               If the national courts find that there is abuse arising from the use of successive appointments of temporary regulated staff to cover vacancies in the Madrid Health Service and that they are being used to cover permanent structural needs in the provision of services by permanent regulated employees, given that domestic law contains no effective measure to penalise such misuse and eliminate the consequences of the breach of EU legislation, must Clause 5 of the Framework Agreement annexed to Directive 1999/70/EC be interpreted as requiring the national courts to adopt effective deterrent measures to ensure the effectiveness of the Framework Agreement, and therefore to penalise that misuse and eliminate the consequences of the breach of that EU legislation, disapplying the rule of domestic law that prevents it from being effective?
               If the answer should be affirmative, as held by the Court of Justice of the European Union in paragraph 41 of its judgment of 14 September 2016 in Cases C 184/15 and C 197/15: (2)

               As a measure to prevent and penalise the misuse of successive temporary contracts and to eliminate the consequence of the breach of EU law, would it be consistent with the objectives pursued by Directive 1999/70/EC to convert the temporary interim/occasional/replacement regulated relationship into a stable regulated relationship, the employee being classified as a permanent official or an official with an appointment of indefinite duration, with the same security of employment as comparable permanent regulated employees?

               7.

               If there is abuse of successive temporary contracts, can the conversion of the temporary regulated relationship into an indefinite or permanent relationship be regarded as satisfying the objectives of Directive 1999/70/EC and its Framework Agreement only if the temporary regulated employee who has been the victim of this misuse enjoys exactly the same working conditions as permanent regulated employees (as regards social security, promotion, opportunities to cover vacant posts, training, leave of absence, determination of administrative status, sick leave and other permitted absences, pension rights, termination of employment and participation in selection competitions to fill vacancies and obtain promotion) in accordance with the principles of permanence and security of employment, with all associated rights and obligations, on equal terms with permanent regulated IT specialists?

               8.

               In the circumstances described here, is there an obligation under EU law to review final judgments/administrative acts when the four conditions laid down in Kühne & Heitz NV (C 453/00 of 13 January 2004) (3) are met: (1) Under Spanish national law, the authorities and the courts may review decisions (even if the restrictions involved make it very difficult or even impossible); (2) The contested decisions have become final as a result of a judgment of a national court issued in sole or final instance; (3) That judgment is based on an interpretation of EU law inconsistent with the case-law of the CJEU and adopted without a question being referred to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling; and (4) The person concerned applied to the administrative body as soon as it knew of the relevant case-law?

               9.

               May and must national courts, as European courts that must give full effect to EU law in the Member States, require and order the internal administrative authority of a Member State — within its respective area of jurisdiction — to adopt the relevant measures in order to eliminate rules of domestic law incompatible with EU law in general, and with Directive 1999/70/EC and its Framework Agreement in particular?

      (1)  Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43).

      (2)  Judgment of the Court of Justice of 14 September 2016, Martínez Andrés and Castrejana López (C-184/15 and C-197/15, EU:C:2016:680).

      (3)  Judgment of 13 January 2004, Kühne & Heitz NV (C-453/00, EU:C:2004:17).


title: Case T-150/18: Action brought on 1 March 2018 — BNP Paribas v ECB

text:
               7.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/59

         Action brought on 1 March 2018 — BNP Paribas v ECB
   (Case T-150/18)
   (2018/C 161/69)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: BNP Paribas (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Gosset-Grainville, M. Trabucchi and P. Kupka, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Central Bank

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               partially annul Article 9 of ECB Decision No ECB/SSM/2017 — R0MUWSFPU8MPRO8K5P83/248 of 19 December 2017 in so far as it imposes a deduction from the irrevocable payment commitments subscribed with the Single Resolution Fund, national resolution funds and national Common Equity Tier I deposit guarantee schemes, on an individual, sub-consolidated and consolidated basis, and in particular paragraphs 9.1, 9.2 and 9.3:

               —

               order the ECB to pay all the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision lacks a legal basis in that the ECB made use of its supervisory powers to impose a measure of general scope that falls within the competence of the legislature and exceeded its powers under Article 4(1)(f) and Article 16 of Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions (OJ 2013 L 287, p 63).

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by an error of law in that the ECB made an interpretation contrary to the legislative intent of the EU legislation authorising credit institutions to use irrevocable payment commitments in order to fulfil part of their obligations vis-à-vis the national resolution funds, the Single Resolution Fund and the national deposit guarantee schemes, thus rendering the relevant provisions ineffective. The ECB, it is claimed, also based its decision on a misreading of the EU and national legal transposition framework applicable to irrevocable payment commitments.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is based on an error of assessment and infringes the principle of good administration.


title: Case T-540/15: Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2018 — De Capitani v Parliament (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents concerning an ongoing legislative procedure — Trilogues — Four-column tables relating to the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Europol and repealing Decisions 2009/371/JAI and 2005/681/JAI — Partial refusal of access — Action for annulment — Interest in bringing proceedings — Admissibility — First subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001 — Exception relating to the protection of the decision-making process — No general presumption that access should be refused to four-column tables drawn up for the purposes of trilogues)

text:
               7.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/46

         Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2018 — De Capitani v Parliament
   (Case T-540/15) (1)

   ((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents concerning an ongoing legislative procedure - Trilogues - Four-column tables relating to the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Europol and repealing Decisions 2009/371/JAI and 2005/681/JAI - Partial refusal of access - Action for annulment - Interest in bringing proceedings - Admissibility - First subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001 - Exception relating to the protection of the decision-making process - No general presumption that access should be refused to four-column tables drawn up for the purposes of trilogues))
   (2018/C 161/50)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Emilio De Capitani (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: O. Brouwer, J. Wolfhagen and E. Raedts, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented initially by: N. Görlitz, A. Troupiotis and C. Burgos, and subsequently by N. Görlitz, C. Burgos and I. Anagnostopoulou, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: E. Rebasti, B. Driessen and J.-B. Laignelot, acting as Agents) and European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Decision A(2015) 4931 of the European Parliament of 8 July 2015, refusing to grant the applicant full access to the documents LIBE-2013-0091-02 and LIBE-2013-0091-03.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Decision A(2015) 4931 of the European Parliament of 8 July 2015 in so far as it refuses to grant Mr Emilio De Capitani full access to documents LIBE-2013-0091-02 and LIBE-2013-0091-03;

               2.

               Orders the Parliament to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr De Capitani;

               3.

               Orders the Council of the European Union and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 398, 30.11.2015.


title: Case C-651/16: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 7 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa — Latvia) — DW v Valsts sociālās apdrošināšanas aģentūra (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social security — Maternity benefit — Calculation of the amount on the basis of the income of the insured person during a reference period of 12 months — Person employed, during that period, by an EU institution — National legislation fixing the amount at issue at 70 % of the average contribution basis — Restriction on freedom of movement for workers — Principle of sincere cooperation)

text:
               7.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/11

         Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 7 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa — Latvia) — DW v Valsts sociālās apdrošināšanas aģentūra
   (Case C-651/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security - Maternity benefit - Calculation of the amount on the basis of the income of the insured person during a reference period of 12 months - Person employed, during that period, by an EU institution - National legislation fixing the amount at issue at 70 % of the average contribution basis - Restriction on freedom of movement for workers - Principle of sincere cooperation))
   (2018/C 161/12)
   Language of the case: Latvian

      Referring court

   Augstākā tiesa

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: DW

      Defendant: Valsts sociālās apdrošināšanas aģentūra

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 45 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State such as that at issue in the main proceedings that, for the purposes of determining the average contribution basis when calculating the amount of maternity benefit, equates the months of the reference period in which the person concerned worked in an EU institution and was not insured in that Member State with a period of unemployment and applies to them the average contribution basis in that Member State, which has the effect of substantially reducing the amount of the maternity benefit granted to that person in comparison with the amount to which she would have been entitled had she been gainfully employed in that Member State alone.

      (1)  OJ C 86, 20.3.2017.


title: Case T-156/18: Action brought on 26 February 2018 — Legutko and Poręba v Parliament

text:
               7.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/59

         Action brought on 26 February 2018 — Legutko and Poręba v Parliament
   (Case T-156/18)
   (2018/C 161/70)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicants: Ryszard Antoni Legutko (Morawica, Poland) and Tomasz Piotr Poręba (Mielec, Poland) (represented by: M. Mataczyński, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               declare that the defendant has infringed Article 130 of the European Parliament’s Rules of Procedure and the provisions of Annex II to those Rules by failing to forward to the Council of the European Union a written question, submitted by Members of the European Parliament in the proceedings registered with the reference number P-003358/17;

               —

               declare that the European Parliament is required to forward the written question registered with the reference number P-003358/17 to the competent institution, which is the Council of the European Union;

               —

               order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               —

               Plea alleging a failure on the part of the European Parliament consisting in a failure to forward to the competent institution, as recommended by the applicants, a written question submitted on 16 May 2017 by Ryszard Legutko and Tomasz Poręba, Members of the European Parliament.


title: Case T-180/18: Action brought on 12 March 2018 — VJ v EEAS

text:
               7.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/69

         Action brought on 12 March 2018 — VJ v EEAS
   (Case T-180/18)
   (2018/C 161/86)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: VJ (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

      Defendant: European External Action Service

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the calculation sheet forwarded to him by email of 22 June 2017 from the EEAS and, so far as necessary, the salary slip through which the payment of the education allowance for his children was/will be granted;

               —

               order the defendant to pay all the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, putting forward an objection of illegality, in so far as the contested decision, the note of 15 April 2016 on which it is based and the EEAS’s Guidelines infringe the Staff Regulations of Officials and Annex X thereto.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging the illegality of the individual decision at issue. There are five parts to that plea.

                           —

                           First part, alleging infringement of the principles of diligence, of the protection of legitimate expectations, of legal certainty and of sound administration and of the applicant’s acquired rights.

                           —

                           Second part, alleging failure by the EEAS to comply with its obligations, its poor administration, and infringement of the principle of legal certainty and of the applicant’s legitimate expectations.

                           —

                           Third part, alleging infringement of the right to found a family and the right to education.

                           —

                           Fourth part, alleging infringement of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination.

                           —

                           Fifth part, alleging that in adopting the measure the EEAS failed to balance the interests involved and infringed the principle of proportionality.


title: Case T-163/18: Action brought on 8 March 2018 — Amisi Kumba v Council

text:
               7.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/60

         Action brought on 8 March 2018 — Amisi Kumba v Council
   (Case T-163/18)
   (2018/C 161/71)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Gabriel Amisi Kumba (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, M. Forgeois and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2282 of 11 December 2017 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in so far as the applicant remains at No 2 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP and No 2 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005;

               —

               Rule that the provisions of Articles 3(2)(b) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP, as amended by Decision 2016/2231/CFSP, and 2b(1)(b) of Regulation [No] 1183/2005/EC are unlawful;

               —

               Order the Council to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence, including breach of the obligation to state reasons justifying the measures and ensuring effective judicial protection and breach of the right to be heard.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment as regards the involvement of the applicant in acts constituting serious human rights breaches in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to privacy, the right of property and the principle of proportionality.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the provisions of Articles 3(2)(b) of Council Decision 2010/788/CFSP of 20 December 2010 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo and repealing Common Position 2008/369/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 336, p. 30), as amended by Council Decision 2016/2231/CFSP of 12 December 2016 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP of 20 December 2010 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2016 L 336, p. 7), and 2b(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 of 18 July 2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2005 L 193, p. 1) are unlawful.


title: Case C-105/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 13 February 2018 — Asociación Española de la Industria Eléctrica (UNESA) v Administración General del Estado

text:
               7.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/25

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 13 February 2018 — Asociación Española de la Industria Eléctrica (UNESA) v Administración General del Estado
   (Case C-105/18)
   (2018/C 161/28)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Supremo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Asociación Española de la Industria Eléctrica (UNESA)

      Defendant: Administración General del Estado

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must the ‘the polluter pays’ environmental principle, provided for in Article 191(2) TFEU, and Article 9(1) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000, (1) which lays down the principle of the recovery of costs for water services and also the appropriate economic balancing of water uses, be interpreted as precluding the introduction of a tax on the use of inland waters to produce energy, such as the tax at issue in the proceedings, which does not incentivise the efficient use of water, nor establish mechanisms for the preservation and protection of public water resources, the quantification of that tax being totally unconnected to the capacity to cause damage to the public water resources, as it is focused solely and exclusively on the income-generating capacity of producers?

               2.

               Is a tax such as the hydraulic tax the subject of the proceedings, which exclusively affects hydroelectricity generators operating in river basins encompassing more than one autonomous community, but not concession-holding producers in river basins encompassing a single autonomous community, and also producers using hydroelectric technology, but not energy producers using other technologies, compatible with the principle of non-discrimination between operators provided for in Article 3(1) of Directive 2009/72/EC of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity? (2)

               3.

               Must Article 107(1) TFEU be interpreted as meaning that the levying of a hydraulic tax such as that at issue to the detriment of hydroelectricity producers operating within river basins encompassing more than one autonomous community constitutes prohibited State aid, in that it introduces an asymmetrical system of taxation within the same area of technology, depending on the plant’s location, and the tax is not levied on producers of energy from other sources?

      (1)  Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (OJ 2000 L 327, p. 1).

      (2)  Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC (OJ 2009 L 211, p. 55).


title: Case T-242/16: Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2018 — Stavytskyi v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted in view of the situation in Ukraine — Freezing of funds — List of persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources — Applicant’s name maintained on the list — Obligation to state reasons — Objection of illegality — Proportionality — Legal basis — Manifest error of assessment)

text:
               7.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/47

         Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2018 — Stavytskyi v Council
   (Case T-242/16) (1)

   ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted in view of the situation in Ukraine - Freezing of funds - List of persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources - Applicant’s name maintained on the list - Obligation to state reasons - Objection of illegality - Proportionality - Legal basis - Manifest error of assessment))
   (2018/C 161/51)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Edward Stavytskyi (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J. Grayston, Solicitor, P. Gjørtler, G. Pandey and D. Rovetta, lawyers)

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

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: E. Paasivirta and S. Bartelt, and subsequently by: E. Paasivirta and L. Baumgart, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application brought pursuant to Article 263 TFEU and seeking the annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/318 of 4 March 2016 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2016 L 60, p. 76), and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/311 of 4 March 2016 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2016 L 60, p. 1), in so far as the applicant’s name was maintained on the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to those restrictive measures.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Edward Stavytskyi to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 270, 25.7.2016.


title: Case T-164/18: Action brought on 8 March 2018 — Kampete v Council

text:
               7.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/61

         Action brought on 8 March 2018 — Kampete v Council
   (Case T-164/18)
   (2018/C 161/72)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Ilunga Kampete (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, M. Forgeois and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2282 of 11 December 2017 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in so far as the applicant remains at No 1 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP and No 1 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005;

               —

               Rule that the provisions of Articles 3(2)(b) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP, as amended by Decision 2016/2231/CFSP, and 2b(1)(b) of Regulation [No] 1183/2005/EC are unlawful;

               —

               Order the Council to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law, which are in essence identical or similar to those raised in Case T-163/18, Amisi Kumba v Council.


title: Case C-106/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 13 February 2018 — Energía de Galicia (Engasa), S.A. v Administración General del Estado

text:
               7.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/26

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 13 February 2018 — Energía de Galicia (Engasa), S.A. v Administración General del Estado
   (Case C-106/18)
   (2018/C 161/29)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Supremo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Energía de Galicia (Engasa), S.A.

      Defendant: Administración General del Estado

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must the ‘the polluter pays’ environmental principle, provided for in Article 191(2) TFEU, and Article 9(1) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000, (1) which lays down the principle of the recovery of costs for water services and also the appropriate economic balancing of water uses, be interpreted as precluding the introduction of a tax on the use of inland waters to produce energy, such as the tax at issue in the proceedings, which does not incentivise the efficient use of water, nor establish mechanisms for the preservation and protection of public water resources, the quantification of that tax being totally unconnected to the capacity to cause damage to the public water resources, as it is focused solely and exclusively on the income-generating capacity of producers?

               2.

               Is a tax such as the hydraulic tax the subject of the proceedings, which exclusively affects hydroelectricity generators operating in river basins encompassing more than one autonomous community, but not concession-holding producers in river basins encompassing a single autonomous community, and also producers using hydroelectric technology, but not energy producers using other technologies, compatible with the principle of non-discrimination between operators provided for in Article 3(1) of Directive 2009/72/EC of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity? (2)

               3.

               Must Article 107(1) TFEU be interpreted as meaning that the levying of a hydraulic tax such as that at issue to the detriment of hydroelectricity producers operating within river basins encompassing more than one autonomous community constitutes prohibited State aid, in that it introduces an asymmetrical system of taxation within the same area of technology, depending on the plant’s location, and the tax is not levied on producers of energy from other sources?

      (1)  Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (OJ 2000 L 327, p. 1).

      (2)  Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC (OJ 2009 L 211, p. 55).


title: Case T-442/16: Judgment of the General Court of 20 March 2018 — Šroubárna Ždánice v Council (Application for repayment of anti-dumping duties — Imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in China or consigned from Malaysia — Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 723/2011 — Jurisdiction of the national court — Lack of jurisdiction of the General Court)

text:
               7.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/47

         Judgment of the General Court of 20 March 2018 — Šroubárna Ždánice v Council
   (Case T-442/16) (1)

   ((Application for repayment of anti-dumping duties - Imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in China or consigned from Malaysia - Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 723/2011 - Jurisdiction of the national court - Lack of jurisdiction of the General Court))
   (2018/C 161/52)
   Language of the case: Czech

      Parties

      Applicant: Šroubárna Ždánice a.s. (Kyjov, Czech Republic) (represented by: M. Osladil, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: H. Marcos Fraile and A. Westerhof Löfflerová, acting as Agents, and N. Tuominen, lawyer)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for repayment of the anti-dumping duties, with interest, that the applicant claims to have wrongfully paid to the customs authorities of the Czech Republic following the adoption of Council Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 of 26 January 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2009 L 29, p. 1), of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 723/2011 of 18 July 2011 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Regulation No 91/2007 on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of certain iron or steel fasteners consigned from Malaysia, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not (OJ 2011 L 194, p. 6), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 924/2012 of 4 October 2012 amending Regulation No 91/2009 (OJ 2012 L 275, p. 1).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action on the ground of the Court’s lack of jurisdiction to hear and determine it;

               2.

               Orders Šroubárna Ždánice a.s. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 392, 24.10.2016.


title: Case C-107/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 13 February 2018 — Duerocanto, S.L. v Administración General del Estado

text:
               7.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/27

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 13 February 2018 — Duerocanto, S.L. v Administración General del Estado
   (Case C-107/18)
   (2018/C 161/30)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Supremo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Duerocanto, S.L.

      Defendant: Administración General del Estado

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must the ‘the polluter pays’ environmental principle, provided for in Article 191(2) TFEU, and Article 9(1) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000, (1) which lays down the principle of the recovery of costs for water services and also the appropriate economic balancing of water uses, be interpreted as precluding the introduction of a tax on the use of inland waters to produce energy, such as the tax at issue in the proceedings, which does not incentivise the efficient use of water, nor establish mechanisms for the preservation and protection of public water resources, the quantification of that tax being totally unconnected to the capacity to cause damage to the public water resources, as it is focused solely and exclusively on the income-generating capacity of producers?

               2.

               Is a tax such as the hydraulic tax the subject of the proceedings, which exclusively affects hydroelectricity generators operating in river basins encompassing more than one autonomous community, but not concession-holding producers in river basins encompassing a single autonomous community, and also producers using hydroelectric technology, but not energy producers using other technologies, compatible with the principle of non-discrimination between operators provided for in Article 3(1) of Directive 2009/72/EC of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity? (2)

               3.

               Must Article 107(1) TFEU be interpreted as meaning that the levying of a hydraulic tax such as that at issue to the detriment of hydroelectricity producers operating within river basins encompassing more than one autonomous community constitutes prohibited State aid, in that it introduces an asymmetrical system of taxation within the same area of technology, depending on the plant’s location, and the tax is not levied on producers of energy from other sources?

      (1)  Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (OJ 2000 L 327, p. 1).

      (2)  Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC (OJ 2009 L 211, p. 55).


title: Case C-31/17: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Cristal Union, the legal successor to Sucrerie de Toury SA v Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2003/96/EC — Taxation of energy products and electricity — Article 14(1)(a) — Energy products used for the generation of electricity — Obligation to exempt — Article 15(1)(c) — Energy products used for combined heat and power generation — Option to exempt or reduce the level of taxation — Natural gas intended for use in the cogeneration of heat and electricity)

text:
               7.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/11

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Cristal Union, the legal successor to Sucrerie de Toury SA v Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances
   (Case C-31/17) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2003/96/EC - Taxation of energy products and electricity - Article 14(1)(a) - Energy products used for the generation of electricity - Obligation to exempt - Article 15(1)(c) - Energy products used for combined heat and power generation - Option to exempt or reduce the level of taxation - Natural gas intended for use in the cogeneration of heat and electricity))
   (2018/C 161/13)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Cristal Union, the legal successor to Sucrerie de Toury SA

      Defendant: Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 14(1)(a) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity must be interpreted as meaning that the compulsory exemption provided for in that provision applies to energy products used for electricity generation, when such products are used for the combined generation of electricity and heat within the meaning of Article 15(1)(c) of that directive.

      (1)  OJ C 112, 10.4.2017.


title: Case T-579/16: Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2018 — HJ v EMA (Civil service — Temporary staff — Refusal to renew a fixed-term contract — First paragraph of Article 8 of the CEOS — Reclassification of a fixed-term contract as an indefinite contract — Manifest error of assessment — Duty to have regard for the welfare of staff — Duty to state reasons — Right to be heard — Appraisal report — Duty to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment)

text:
               7.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/48

         Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2018 — HJ v EMA
   (Case T-579/16) (1)

   ((Civil service - Temporary staff - Refusal to renew a fixed-term contract - First paragraph of Article 8 of the CEOS - Reclassification of a fixed-term contract as an indefinite contract - Manifest error of assessment - Duty to have regard for the welfare of staff - Duty to state reasons - Right to be heard - Appraisal report - Duty to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment))
   (2018/C 161/53)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: HJ (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Medicines Agency (EMA) (represented by: F. Cooney and N. Rampal Olmedo, Agents, and A. Duron and D. Waelbroeck, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application based on Article 270 TFEU and seeking, first, annulment of the applicants appraisal report relating to the period from 16 February 2014 to 31 December 2014, of the EMA’s decision dated 1 April 2015 not to renew the applicant’s contract as a member of the temporary staff and of the two decisions dated 26 October 2015 rejecting the complaints brought by the applicant against those measures and, secondly, an application for compensation in respect of the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders HJ to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 145, 25.4.2016 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under number F-8/16 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).


title: Case C-64/17: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 8 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação do Porto — Portugal) — Saey Home & Garden NV/SA v Lusavouga-Máquinas e Acessórios Industriais SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Article 25 — Existence of a jurisdiction clause — Verbal agreement without written confirmation — Clause contained in the general terms and conditions of sale mentioned in invoices — Article 7(1)(b) — Commercial concession agreement between two companies established in different Member States in respect of the market of a third Member State — Article 7(1)(b), second indent — Determination of the court with jurisdiction — Place of performance of the obligation that is characteristic of such a contract)

text:
               7.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/12

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 8 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação do Porto — Portugal) — Saey Home & Garden NV/SA v Lusavouga-Máquinas e Acessórios Industriais SA
   (Case C-64/17) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Article 25 - Existence of a jurisdiction clause - Verbal agreement without written confirmation - Clause contained in the general terms and conditions of sale mentioned in invoices - Article 7(1)(b) - Commercial concession agreement between two companies established in different Member States in respect of the market of a third Member State - Article 7(1)(b), second indent - Determination of the court with jurisdiction - Place of performance of the obligation that is characteristic of such a contract))
   (2018/C 161/14)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Tribunal da Relação do Porto

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Saey Home & Garden NV/SA

      Defendant: Lusavouga-Máquinas e Acessórios Industriais SA

      Operative part of the judgment

               (1)

               Article 25(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that, subject to the verifications to be made by the referring court, a jurisdiction clause, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, set out in the general conditions of sale mentioned in invoices issued by one of the contracting parties does not satisfy the requirements of that provision.

               (2)

               Article 7(1) of Regulation No 1215/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that the court with jurisdiction, by virtue of that provision, to hear a claim for compensation relating to the termination of a commercial concession agreement concluded between two companies established and operating in two different Member States for the distribution of goods on the domestic market of a third Member State in which neither of those companies has a branch or establishment, is that of the Member State in which the place of the main supply of services, as is clear from the provisions of the contract and, in the absence of such provisions, the actual performance of that contract, and where it cannot be determined on that basis, the place where the agent is domiciled.

      (1)  OJ C 112, 10.4.2017.


title: Case T-734/16: Judgment of the General Court of 20 March 2018 — Argyraki v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Pensions — Calculation of years — Taking into account periods of service completed as a member of the auxiliary staff — Conditions — Legal basis)

text:
               7.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/49

         Judgment of the General Court of 20 March 2018 — Argyraki v Commission
   (Case T-734/16) (1)

   ((Civil service - Officials - Pensions - Calculation of years - Taking into account periods of service completed as a member of the auxiliary staff - Conditions - Legal basis))
   (2018/C 161/54)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Vassilia Argyraki (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially, G. Berscheid, G. Gattinara and A.-C. Simon, then G. Berscheid, G. Gattinara and L. Radu Bouyon, Agents)

      Re:

   Application on the basis of Article 270 TFEU and seeking annulment of the decision of the Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (PMO) dated 29 January 2016 by which the latter refused the applicant’s request to have the periods of service she supplied as a member of the auxiliary staff validated as periods completed as a member of the temporary staff in the calculation of her pension rights.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the European Commission’s Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (PMO) dated 29 January 2016 by which the latter refused Ms Vassilia Argyraki’s request to have the periods of service she supplied as a member of the auxiliary staff validated as periods completed as a member of the temporary staff in the calculation of her pension rights;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 462, 12.12.2016.


title: Case C-108/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 13 February 2018 — Corporación Acciona Hidráulica (Acciona), S.L.U. v Administración General del Estado

text:
               7.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/28

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 13 February 2018 — Corporación Acciona Hidráulica (Acciona), S.L.U. v Administración General del Estado
   (Case C-108/18)
   (2018/C 161/31)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Supremo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Corporación Acciona Hidráulica (Acciona), S.L.U.

      Defendant: Administración General del Estado

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must the ‘the polluter pays’ environmental principle, provided for in Article 191(2) TFEU, and Article 9(1) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000, (1) which lays down the principle of the recovery of costs for water services and also the appropriate economic balancing of water uses, be interpreted as precluding the introduction of a tax on the use of inland waters to produce energy, such as the tax at issue in the proceedings, which does not incentivise the efficient use of water, nor establish mechanisms for the preservation and protection of public water resources, the quantification of that tax being totally unconnected to the capacity to cause damage to the public water resources, as it is focused solely and exclusively on the income-generating capacity of producers?

               2.

               Is a tax such as the hydraulic tax the subject of the proceedings, which exclusively affects hydroelectricity generators operating in river basins encompassing more than one autonomous community, but not concession-holding producers in river basins encompassing a single autonomous community, and also producers using hydroelectric technology, but not energy producers using other technologies, compatible with the principle of non-discrimination between operators provided for in Article 3(1) of Directive 2009/72/EC of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity? (2)

               3.

               Must Article 107(1) TFEU be interpreted as meaning that the levying of a hydraulic tax such as that at issue to the detriment of hydroelectricity producers operating within river basins encompassing more than one autonomous community constitutes prohibited State aid, in that it introduces an asymmetrical system of taxation within the same area of technology, depending on the plant’s location, and the tax is not levied on producers of energy from other sources?

      (1)  Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (OJ 2000 L 327, p. 1).

      (2)  Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC (OJ 2009 L 211, p. 55).


title: Case T-181/18: Action brought on 9 March 2018 — Multifit Tiernahrungs v EUIPO (TAKE CARE)

text:
               7.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/70

         Action brought on 9 March 2018 — Multifit Tiernahrungs v EUIPO (TAKE CARE)
   (Case T-181/18)
   (2018/C 161/87)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Multifit Tiernahrungs GmbH (Krefeld, Germany) (represented by: N. Weber and L. Thiel, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word element ‘TAKE CARE’ — Application for registration No 16 254 898

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 January 2018 in Case R 845/2017-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001.