201806150791955182018/C 231/462652018TC23120180702EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180427363721Case T-265/18: Action brought on 27 April 2018 — Biernacka-Hoba v EUIPO — Formata Bogusław Hoba (Formata)
 ---documentbreak--- C2312018EN3610120180427EN0046361372Action brought on 27 April 2018 — Biernacka-Hoba v EUIPO — Formata Bogusław Hoba (Formata)
   (Case T-265/18)2018/C 231/46Language in which the application was lodged: Polish
      Parties

      Applicant: Ilona Biernacka-Hoba (Aleksandrów Łódzki, Poland) (represented by: R. Rumpel, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Formata Bogusław Hoba (Aleksandrów Łódzki, Poland)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

      Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word element ‘Formata’ — European Union trade mark No 11 529 427

      Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 February 2018 in Case R 2032/2017-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

            —

            declare the action well founded;

            —

            annul the contested decision in so far as it dismisses the application for a declaration that the trade mark ‘Formata’ No 11 529 427 is invalid;

            —

            amend the contested decision by declaring the trade mark ‘Formata’ No 11 529 427 invalid;

            —

            amend the contested decision in so far as it concerns the costs;

            —

            order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

            —

            The Board of Appeal incorrectly considered that there was a lack of substantiation of the earlier trade mark.


201806150381954972018/C 231/203122018CJC23120180702EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180511171711Case C-312/18 P: Appeal brought on 11 May 2018 by Eco-Bat Technologies Ltd, Berzelius Metall GmbH, Société traitements chimiques des métaux against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 21 March 2018 in Case T-361/17: Eco-Bat Technologies Ltd, Berzelius Metall GmbH, Société traitements chimiques des métaux v European Commission
 ---documentbreak--- C2312018EN1710120180511EN0020171171Appeal brought on 11 May 2018 by Eco-Bat Technologies Ltd, Berzelius Metall GmbH, Société traitements chimiques des métaux against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 21 March 2018 in Case T-361/17: Eco-Bat Technologies Ltd, Berzelius Metall GmbH, Société traitements chimiques des métaux v European Commission
   (Case C-312/18 P)2018/C 231/20Language of the case: English
      Parties

      Appellants: Eco-Bat Technologies Ltd, Berzelius Metall GmbH, Société traitements chimiques des métaux (represented by: M. Brealey QC, I. Vandenborre, advocaat, S. Dionnet, avocat)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

            —

            set aside the order of the General Court (Eight Chamber) of 21 March 2018 in case T-361/17, Eco-Bat Technologies and Others v Commission;

            —

            declare admissible the appellant’s application registered as case T-361/17;

            —

            refer the case back to the General Court for the annulment or reduction of the penalty imposed by the Commission with the initial decision as amended by the correcting decision;

            —

            order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The General Court has committed an error in law in determining the reference date by looking at the initial, incomplete, decision instead of the full and final decision, correct and complete in every aspect (particularly in those aspects that are the object of the appeal). By doing so, the General Court has breached the appellant’s fundamental rights (in particular, its right of defence). A person has the right to have the limitation period available in full as from the date of the substantive amendment decision. The General Court has also misinterpreted the Commission’s duty to state reasons and the principle of good administration in assuming that the appellant should have resorted to assumptions in order to fully understand how the Commission arrived at the amount of the fine.


201806150841955142018/C 231/472672018TC23120180702EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180430373711Case T-267/18: Action brought on 30 April 2018 — Iceland Foods v EUIPO — Íslandsstofa (INSPIRED BY ICELAND)
 ---documentbreak--- C2312018EN3710120180430EN0047371371Action brought on 30 April 2018 — Iceland Foods v EUIPO — Íslandsstofa (INSPIRED BY ICELAND)
   (Case T-267/18)2018/C 231/47Language in which the application was lodged: English
      Parties

      Applicant: Iceland Foods Ltd (Deeside, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, QC, J. Hertzog, C. Hill and J. Warner, Solicitors)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Íslandsstofa (Reykjavik, Iceland)

      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 INSPIRED BY ICELAND — Application for registration No 14 350 094

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Interim Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 February 2018 in Case R 340/2017-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

            —

            annul the contested decision;

            —

            order EUIPO and the other party to bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant.

      Pleas in law

            —

            Infringement of Article 71 of Regulation No 2017/1001 by failing to decide the appeal;

            —

            Infringement of an essential procedural requirement under Article 72 of Regulation No 2017/1001 in that the Board acted contrary to the principles of procedural economy and fairness in deciding to remit the case for re-examination of the contested mark on absolute grounds, while also pre-judging the applicability of absolute grounds without hearing from the applicant for annulment, thereby acting contrary to the principle of audi alteram partem.


201806150631955022018/C 231/214292013TC23120180702EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180517181921Cases T-429/13 and T-451/13: Judgment of the General Court of 17 May 2018 — Bayer CropScience and Others v Commission (Plant protection products — Active substances clothianidin, thiamethoxam and imidacloprid — Review of approval — Article 21 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 — Prohibition of the use and sale of seeds treated with plant protection products containing the active substances in question — Article 49(2) of Regulation No 1107/2009 — Precautionary principle — Proportionality — Right to be heard — Non-contractual liability)
 ---documentbreak--- C2312018EN1810120180517EN0021181192Judgment of the General Court of 17 May 2018 — Bayer CropScience and Others v Commission
   (Cases T-429/13 and T-451/13) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Plant protection products — Active substances clothianidin, thiamethoxam and imidacloprid — Review of approval — Article 21 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 — Prohibition of the use and sale of seeds treated with plant protection products containing the active substances in question — Article 49(2) of Regulation No 1107/2009 — Precautionary principle — Proportionality — Right to be heard — Non-contractual liability)’2018/C 231/21Language of the case: English
      Parties

      Applicant in Case T-429/13: Bayer CropScience AG (Monheim am Rhein, Germany) (represented by: K. Nordlander, lawyer, and P. Harrison, Solicitor)

      Applicants in Case T-451/13: Syngenta Crop Protection AG (Basel, Switzerland), and the 15 other applicants whose names appear in the annex to the judgment (represented initially by: D. Waelbroek, I. Antypas, lawyers, and D. Slater, Solicitor, and subsequently by D. Waelbroek and I. Antypas)

      Defendant in Cases T-429/13 and T-451/13: European Commission (represented by: P. Ondrůšek and G. von Rintelen, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the applicants in Cases T-429/13 and T-451/13: Association générale des producteurs de maïs et autres céréales cultivées de la sous-famille des panicoïdées (AGPM) (Montardon, France) (represented by: L. Verdier and B. Trouvé, lawyers), The National Farmers’ Union (NFU) (Stoneleigh, United Kingdom) (represented by: H. Mercer QC, and N. Winter, Solicitor), Association européenne pour la protection des cultures (ECPA) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: D. Abrahams, Barrister, I. de Seze and É. Mullier, lawyers), Rapool-Ring GmbH Qualitätsraps deutscher Züchter (Isernhagen, Germany) (represented initially by: C. Stallberg and U. Reese, and subsequently by U. Reese and J. Szemjonneck, lawyers), European Seed Association (ESA) (Brussels) (represented initially by: P. de Jong, P. Vlaemminck and B. Van Vooren, and subsequently by P. de Jong, K. Claeyé and E. Bertolotto, lawyers), Agricultural Industries Confederation Ltd (Peterborough, United Kingdom) (represented initially by: P. de Jong, P. Vlaemminck and B. Van Vooren, and subsequently by P. de Jong, K. Claeyé and E. Bertolotto, lawyers)

      Interveners in support of the defendant in Cases T-429/13 and T-451/13: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk, C. Meyer-Seitz, U. Persson, E. Karlsson, L. Swedenborg and C. Hagerman, acting as Agents), Union nationale de l’apiculture française (UNAF), (Paris, France) (represented, in Case T-429/13, by: B. Fau and J.-F. Funke, lawyers, and, in Case T-451/13, by B. Fau), Deutscher Berufs- und Erwerbsimkerbund eV (Soltau, Germany), Österreichischer Erwerbsimkerbund (Großebersdorf, Austria) (represented by: A. Willand and B. Tschida, lawyers), Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) (Brussels), Bee Life European Beekeeping Coordination (Bee Life) (Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium), Buglife — The Invertebrate Conservation Trust (Peterborough) (represented by: B. Kloostra, lawyer), Stichting Greenpeace Council (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: B. Kloostra, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application (i) pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 485/2013 of 24 May 2013 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011, as regards the conditions of approval of the active substances clothianidin, thiamethoxam and imidacloprid, and prohibiting the use and sale of seeds treated with plant protection products containing those active substances (OJ 2013 L 139, p. 12), and (ii) in Case T-451/13, pursuant to Article 268 TFEU for compensation for the damage which the applicants claim to have suffered.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

            1.

            Orders that Cases T-429/13 and T-451/13 be joined for the purposes of the judgment closing the proceedings;

            2.

            Dismisses the actions;

            3.

            Orders Bayer CropScience AG, Syngenta Crop Protection AG and the other applicants whose names appear in the annex to bear their own costs, and to pay those incurred by the European Commission, the Union nationale de l’apiculture française (UNAF), Deutscher Berufs- und Erwerbsimkerbund eV and Österreichischer Erwerbsimkerbund;

            4.

            Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to bear its own costs;

            5.

            Orders the Association générale des producteurs de maïs et autres céréales cultivées de la sous-famille des panicoïdées (AGPM), The National Farmers’ Union (NFU), the Association européenne pour la protection des cultures (ECPA), Rapool-Ring GmbH Qualitätsraps deutscher Züchter, the European Seed Association (ESA), the Agricultural Industries Confederation Ltd, Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe), Bee Life European Beekeeping Coordination (Bee Life), Buglife — The Invertebrate Conservation Trust and Stichting Greenpeace Council to bear their own costs.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 325, 9.11.2013.


201806220511970842018/C 240/733572017TC24020180709EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180515636311Case T-357/17: Order of the General Court of 15 May 2018 — Aide et Action France v Commission
 ---documentbreak--- C2402018EN6310120180515EN0073631631Order of the General Court of 15 May 2018 — Aide et Action France v Commission
   (Case T-357/17) (
         1
      )2018/C 240/73Language of the case: FrenchThe President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.
   (
         1
      )	OJ C 269, 14.8.2017.


201806220621970612018/C 240/592732018TC24020180709EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180430515111Case T-273/18: Action brought on 30 April 2018 — Bernaldo de Quirós v Commission
 ---documentbreak--- C2402018EN5110120180430EN0059511511Action brought on 30 April 2018 — Bernaldo de Quirós v Commission
   (Case T-273/18)2018/C 240/59Language of the case: French
      Parties

      Applicant: Belén Bernaldo de Quirós (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

            —

            declare the present application admissible and well founded;

      and accordingly:

            —

            annul the decision of 6 July 2017;

            —

            annul, in so far as appropriate, the decision of 31 January 2018 rejecting the complaint;

            —

            order compensation for the non-material harm incurred by the applicant as a result of those decisions, estimated, symbolically, at EUR 1;

            —

            order the defendant to pay all costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

            1.

            First plea in law, alleging breach of the mandate given to the Investigation and Disciplinary Office with regard to the administrative investigation carried out in relation to the applicant, and infringement of the principles of impartiality and sound administration.

            2.

            Second plea in law, alleging, first, infringement of the principle of respect for the rights of the defence and of Article 3 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations, and, secondly, infringement of the principle of equality of arms during the hearing of the applicant, on the basis of Article 22 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations.

            3.

            Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality and a manifest error of assessment.


201806220351970372018/C 240/292612018CJC24020180709EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180413252622Case C-261/18: Action brought on 13 April 2018 — European Commission v Ireland
 ---documentbreak--- C2402018EN2520120180413EN0029252262Action brought on 13 April 2018 — European Commission v Ireland
   (Case C-261/18)2018/C 240/29Language of the case: English
      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Noll-Ehlers, J. Tomkin, Agents)

      Defendant: Ireland

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

            —

            to declare that, by failing to take the necessary measures to comply with the second ground of the judgment of this Court in Case C-215/06 (
                  1
               ), Commission v Ireland, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260 TFEU;

            —

            to order Ireland to pay to the Commission a lump sum of EUR 1343,2multiplied by the number of days between the ruling in Case C-215/06 and either compliance by Ireland with that ruling or the judgment in the present proceedings, whichever is the sooner, with a minimum lump sum of EUR 1685000;

            —

            to order Ireland to pay to the Commission a penalty payment of EUR 12,264 per day from the date of the judgment in the present proceedings to the date of compliance by Ireland with the ruling in Case C-215/06; and

            —

            order Ireland to pay the costs of this action.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Ireland is required, under Article 260 (1) TFEU, to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of the Court in C-215/06. As Ireland has not taken the necessary measures to comply with the second ground of that judgment, the Commission decided to refer the matter to the Court of Justice.
   In its application, the Commission proposes that the Court of Justice impose a lump sum payment of EUR 1343,2 per day and a penalty payment of EUR 12,264 per day on Ireland. The amount of the lump sum and of the penalty payment has been calculated taking into account the seriousness and duration of the infringement and the deterrent effect based on that Member State’s ability to pay.
   (
         1
      )	judgment of 3 July 2008, Commission v Ireland, C-215/16, EU:C:2008:380.


201807130212003582018/C 268/161602017CJC26820180730EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180607131311Case C-160/17: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — Belgium) — Raoul Thybaut, Johnny De Coster, Frédéric Romain v Région wallonne (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Directive 2001/42/EC — Article 2(a) — Concept of ‘plans and programmes’ — Article 3 — Assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment — Urban land consolidation area — Possibility of derogating from town planning requirements — Modification of the ‘plans and programmes’)
 ---documentbreak--- C2682018EN1310120180607EN0016131131Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — Belgium) — Raoul Thybaut, Johnny De Coster, Frédéric Romain v Région wallonne
   (Case C-160/17) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Directive 2001/42/EC — Article 2(a) — Concept of ‘plans and programmes’ — Article 3 — Assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment — Urban land consolidation area — Possibility of derogating from town planning requirements — Modification of the ‘plans and programmes’)’2018/C 268/16Language of the case: French
      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Raoul Thybaut, Johnny De Coster, Frédéric Romain

      Defendant: Région wallonne

      Interveners: Commune d’Orp-Jauche, Bodymat SA

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 2(a), Article 3(1) and Article 3(2)(a) of Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment must be interpreted as meaning that an order adopting an urban land consolidation area, the sole purpose of which is to determine a geographical area within which an urban development plan may be carried out with the objective of renovating and developing urban functions and requiring the creation, modification, removal or overhang of roads and public spaces in carrying out that plan, in respect of which it will be permissible to derogate from certain planning requirements, comes, because of that possibility of derogation, within the concept of ‘plans and programmes’ likely to have significant effects on the environment within the meaning of that directive, thereby necessitating an environmental assessment.
   (
         1
      )	OJ C 178, 6.6.2017.


201807270472025192018/C 285/494342018CJC28520180813EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180629313222Case C-434/18: Action brought on 29 June 2018 — European Commission v Italian Republic
 ---documentbreak--- C2852018EN3120120180629EN0049312322Action brought on 29 June 2018 — European Commission v Italian Republic
   (Case C-434/18)2018/C 285/49Language of the case: Italian
      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Patakia and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

            —

            find that, by not having sent its national programme for the management of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste to the Commission, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligation under Article 15(4), in conjunction with Article 13(1), of Council Directive 2011/70/Euratom of 19 July 2011 establishing a Community framework for the responsible and safe management of spent fuel and radioactive waste. (
                  1
               )

            —

            order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Article 15(4), in conjunction with Article 13(1), of Council Directive 2011/70/Euratom of 19 July 2011 establishing a Community framework for the responsible and safe management of spent fuel and radioactive waste establishes that Member States are to notify the Commission for the first time ‘as soon as possible’, but not later than 23 August 2015, of the content of their national programmes regarding all items set out in Article 12 of the directive.
   The Commission claims that it is apparent from the information provided by the Italian Republic during the pre-litigation stage that that notification never took place, in as much as the Italian authorities have not yet sent the Commission the final text of the national programme adopted for the management of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste.
   (
         1
      )	OJ 2011 L 199, p 48.


201808030532050372018/C 294/524402018CJC29420180820EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180704383921Case C-440/18 P: Appeal brought on 4 July 2018 by Verein Deutsche Sprache e.V. against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 23 April 2018 in Case T-468/16, Verein Deutsche Sprache e.V. v European Commission
 ---documentbreak--- C2942018EN3810120180704EN0052381392Appeal brought on 4 July 2018 by Verein Deutsche Sprache e.V. against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 23 April 2018 in Case T-468/16, Verein Deutsche Sprache e.V. v European Commission
   (Case C-440/18 P)2018/C 294/52Language of the case: German
      Parties

      Appellant: Verein Deutsche Sprache e.V. (represented by: W. Ehrhardt, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

            —

            set aside the judgment of the General Court of 23 April 2018 in Case T-468/16 and annul the decision of the Secretary-General, on behalf of the Commission, pursuant to Article 4 of the rules for the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (
                  1
               ) of 10 June 2016.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   The appellant raises the following grounds of appeal:

      Improper conduct of proceedings by the General Court: The appellant regards as deficient the fact that the General Court did not make use of its information tools pursuant to Article 24 of the Statute and Articles 88 and 89 of the Rules of Procedure. It should also have examined the Commission’s factual submissions in greater detail independently of the appellant’s request for the production of evidence. Contradictions in the Commission’s factual submissions provided sufficient grounds in this regard.

      Incorrect treatment of the offer of evidence of 20 February 2017: The appellant submits that the General Court erred in failing to examine in greater detail the letter submitted as evidence by a member of the university scientific staff containing insider knowledge, despite having expressly admitted that letter as evidence.
   The appellant complains that the General Court refused to hear the Commission’s spokesperson as a witness, even though the abovementioned document furnished sufficient justification for that person to be heard.

      Presumption of legality not applicable: The appellant is of the view that, contrary to the findings of the General Court, the presumption of legality developed by the European Court of Justice is not applicable to submissions of an EU institution, which, if correct, would amount to a breach of the principles of sound administration.
   The case-law cited by the General Court as regards the application of the presumption of legality relates to different case scenarios and cannot therefore be applied to the present case.

      Failure to take account of indications as to the existence of further documents: The appellant, setting out once more the facts, disputes the finding of the General Court that it had not submitted any conclusive indications as to the existence of further documents.

      Erroneous non-assessment of the appellant’s submissions regarding the obligation of transparency: The appellant notes that the General Court erroneously assumed the Commission’s assertion regarding the existence of further documents to be correct and therefore wrongly disregarded the appellant’s submissions on the obligation of transparency.
   (
         1
      )	OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43.


201808030782050872018/C 294/703862018TC29420180820EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180627565721Case T-386/18: Action brought on 27 June 2018 — Iccrea Banca v Commission and SRB
 ---documentbreak--- C2942018EN5610120180627EN0070561572Action brought on 27 June 2018 — Iccrea Banca v Commission and SRB
   (Case T-386/18)2018/C 294/70Language of the case: Italian
      Parties

      Applicant: Iccrea Banca SpA Istituto Centrale del Credito Cooperativo (Rome, Italy) (represented by: P. Messina, F. Isgrò and A. Dentoni Litta, lawyers)

      Defendants: European Commission, Single Resolution Board

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

            —

            annul, under Article 263 TFEU, Single Resolution Board Decision No SRB/ES/SRF/2018/03 of 12 April 2018 and, as appropriate, the annexes thereto, as well as any subsequent decisions of the Single Resolution Board, even those of which the applicant is not aware, on the basis of which the Banca d’Italia adopted measures No 0517765/18 of 27 April 2018 and No 0646641/18 of 28 May 2018;

            —

            order the payment of compensation under Article 268 TFEU to ICCREA Banca for the damage caused to it, consisting of the higher rates paid, by the Single Resolution Board when determining the contributions owed by the applicant;

            —

            in the alternative, and in the event that the above claims are rejected, declare Article 5(1)(a) and (f) (or, as the case may be, the Regulation in its entirety) invalid, as being contrary to the basic principles of equality, non-discrimination and proportionality;

            —

            in any event, order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs occasioned by the present proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present action is brought against Single Resolution Board Decision No SRB/ES/SRF/2018/03 of 12 April 2018 and the annexes thereto, as well as any subsequent decisions of the Single Resolution Board, even those of which the applicant is not aware, on the basis of which the contributions under Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 (
         1
      ) were determined in regard to the applicant.
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

            1.

            First plea in law, alleging (i) failure to carry out a proper enquiry, (ii) error of assessment of the facts, (iii) infringement and misapplication of Article 5[(1)](a) of Regulation 2015/63, and (iv) infringement of the principles of non-discrimination and sound administration.

                     —

                     The applicant claims in this regard that the Single Resolution Board erred in its application of Article 5[(1)](a) of Regulation 2015/63 when determining the amount of the contributions owed by the applicant by not having taken intragroup liabilities into consideration.

            2.

            Second plea in law, alleging (i) failure to carry out a proper enquiry, (ii) error of assessment of the facts, (iii) infringement and misapplication of Article 5[(1)](f) of Regulation 2015/63, and (iv) infringement of the principles of non-discrimination and sound administration

                     —

                     The applicant claims in this regard that the Single Resolution Board erred in its application of Article 5[(1)](f) of Regulation 2015/63, thereby resulting in double counting.

            3.

            Third plea in law, alleging the unlawful conduct of an EU body giving rise to non-contractual liability under Article 268 TFEU.

                     —

                     The applicant claims in this regard that the conduct of the Single Resolution Board meets all the relevant conditions for non-contractual liability under EU case-law, namely unlawfulness of the alleged conduct of the institutions, the actual existence of damage, and the presence of a causal link between the adopted conduct and the alleged damage.

            4.

            Fourth plea in law, in the alternative and incidentally, alleging that Regulation 2015/63 is in breach of the principles of effectiveness, equivalence and equal treatment and is consequently inapplicable.

                     —

                     The applicant claims in this regard that a possible contradiction between Regulation 2015/63 and the situation of the applicant would be in breach of the aforementioned principles to the extent that persons in the same factual situation as ICCREA would be subject to reductions of contributions, leading to an unlawful deterioration of the applicant’s situation, with the consequence that similar situations would be treated differently.

      (
         1
      )	Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 of 21 October 2014 supplementing Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to ex ante contributions to resolution financing arrangements (OJ 2015 L 11, p. 44).


201808030392050162018/C 294/223442018CJC29420180820EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180525161722Case C-344/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidshof te Gent (Belgium) lodged on 25 May 2018 — ISS Facility Services NV v Sonia Govaerts, Euroclean NV
 ---documentbreak--- C2942018EN1620120180525EN0022162172Request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidshof te Gent (Belgium) lodged on 25 May 2018 — ISS Facility Services NV v Sonia Govaerts, Euroclean NV
   (Case C-344/18)2018/C 294/22Language of the case: Dutch
      Referring court

   Arbeidshof te Gent

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: ISS Facility Services NV

      Respondents: Sonia Govaerts, Euroclean NV

      Question referred

   Must Article 3(1) of Council Directive 2001/23/EC (
         1
      ) of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses, be interpreted as meaning that, in the case where there is a simultaneous transfer of various parts of an undertaking within the meaning of Article 1(1) of that directive, which parts are transferred to various transferees, the rights and obligations arising from the employment contract, as it existed at the time of the transfer, of a worker who was employed in each of the transferred parts, will be transferred to each of the transferees, albeit in proportion to the extent of the employment of the aforementioned worker in the part of the undertaking acquired by each transferee,
   or must that provision be interpreted as meaning that the aforementioned rights and obligations are transferred in their entirety to the transferee of the part of the undertaking in which the aforementioned worker was principally employed,
   or as meaning that, if the provisions of the Directive cannot be interpreted in any of the aforementioned ways, there is no transfer to any transferee of the rights and obligations arising from the employment contract of the aforementioned worker, which is also the case if it is not possible to determine separately the extent of the worker’s employment in each of the transferred parts of the undertaking?
   (
         1
      )	OJ 2001 L 82, p. 16.


201808030472050192018/C 294/042092016CJC29420180820EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL201806284411Case C-209/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 June 2018 — Federal Republic of Germany v Lowell Financial Services GmbH, formerly GFKL Financial Services AG, European Commission (Appeal — State aid — German tax legislation concerning the possibility of carrying certain losses forward to future tax years (‘restructuring clause’) — Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the internal market — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU — Person individually concerned — Article 107(1) TFEU — Concept of ‘State aid’ — Condition relating to selectivity — Determination of the reference framework — Legal classification of the facts)
 ---documentbreak--- C2942018EN410120180628EN00044141Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 June 2018 — Federal Republic of Germany v Lowell Financial Services GmbH, formerly GFKL Financial Services AG, European Commission
   (Case C-209/16 P) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Appeal — State aid — German tax legislation concerning the possibility of carrying certain losses forward to future tax years (‘restructuring clause’) — Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the internal market — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU — Person individually concerned — Article 107(1) TFEU — Concept of ‘State aid’ — Condition relating to selectivity — Determination of the reference framework — Legal classification of the facts)’2018/C 294/04Language of the case: German
      Parties

      Appellant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and R. Kanitz, acting as Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Lowell Financial Services GmbH, formerly GFKL Financial Services AG (represented by: M. Schweda, M. Knebelsberger and F. Loose, Rechtsanwälte), European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, T. Maxian Rusche and K. Blanck-Putz, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

            1.

            Dismisses the cross-appeal;

            2.

            Sets aside points 2 and 3 of the operative part of the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 4 February 2016, GFKL Financial Services v Commission (T-620/11, EU:T:2016:59);

            3.

            Annuls Commission Decision 2011/527/EU of 26 January 2011 on State aid C 7/10 (ex CP 250/09 and NN 5/10) implemented by Germany — Scheme for the carry-forward of tax losses in the case of restructuring of companies in difficulty (Sanierungsklausel);

            4.

            Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs in relation to the proceedings at first instance and on appeal, to pay the costs incurred by the Federal Republic of Germany in relation to the appeal proceedings, and to pay the costs incurred by Lowell Financial Services GmbH in relation to the proceedings at first instance;

            5.

            Orders Lowell Financial Services GmbH to bear its own costs in relation to the appeal proceedings.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 222, 20.6.2016.


201808030622050812018/C 294/613222018TC29420180820EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180523464721Case T-322/18: Action brought on 23 May 2018 — García Ruiz v Parliament
 ---documentbreak--- C2942018EN4610120180523EN0061461472Action brought on 23 May 2018 — García Ruiz v Parliament
   (Case T-322/18)2018/C 294/61Language of the case: Spanish
      Parties

      Applicant: Faustino-Francisco García Ruiz (Alcorcón, Spain) (represented by: C. Manzano Ledesma, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

            —

            Find that the decision of the Committee on Petitions is contested by way of this action and, after declaring the action admissible, find that there has been an infringement of rights, thus guaranteeing the interests of the applicant before this Court.

            —

            Make an order as to costs, if appropriate.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of its action, the applicant claims that:
   This action is brought pursuant to the third paragraph of Article 232 TEC and the third paragraph of Article 265 TFEU on the ground that the Committee on Petitions of the European Parliament did not address to the applicant any act other than a recommendation or an opinion, thus failing to protect the applicant’s right, in breach of the Treaty.
   The decisions adopted by the Administración Pública de la Comunidad de Madrid (public authorities of the Community of Madrid) and the courts cause the applicant damage as regards his rights and financial interests, on account of a breach of the right to receive an additional allowance of public pension granted by the Comunidad de Madrid.
   The administrative decision of the Comunidad de Madrid and the judgments delivered by the courts cause unequal treatment and discrimination as regards the benefits received as between pensioners who have taken voluntary retirement and pensioners who have reached compulsory retirement age.
   The European Union has competence in pension matters and it is therefore for the General Court to safeguard the applicant’s right once the public authorities and the national courts have rejected the right conferred by settled case-law of the courts of the European Union and by the equal pay directives, in the absence of an objective difference in fact and in law as regards the receipt of benefits by the two categories of pensioners mentioned above.


title: Case T-299/18 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 26 June 2018 — Strabag Belgium v Parliament (Application for interim measures — Public works contracts — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Waiting period — Abnormally low tender — Prima facie case — No urgency)

text:
               27.8.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/39

      Order of the President of the General Court of 26 June 2018 — Strabag Belgium v Parliament
      (Case T-299/18 R)
      ((Application for interim measures - Public works contracts - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Waiting period - Abnormally low tender - Prima facie case - No urgency))
      (2018/C 301/52)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Strabag Belgium (Anvers, Belgium) (represented by: M. Schoups, K. Lemmens and M. Lahbib, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: P. López-Carceller, Z. Nagy and B. Simon, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU for suspension of operation of the decision of the Parliament of 19 April 2018 to maintain in force its decision of 24 November 2017 rejecting the applicant’s tender and awarding to five tenderers a framework contract involving general contractor works for Parliament buildings in Brussels (Belgium) (call for tenders 06/D 20/2017/M036).

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The application for interim measures is dismissed.

                  2.

                  The costs are reserved.


title: Case T-57/17: Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2018 — Pegasus v Parliament (Institutional law — European Parliament — Decision awarding a grant to a political foundation — Pre-financing set at 33 % of the maximum amount of the grant awarded — Obligation to provide a bank pre-financing guarantee — Financial Regulation — Rules of Application of the Financial Regulation — Regulation (EC) No 2004/2003 on the regulations governing political parties at European level and the rules regarding their funding — Proportionality — Equal treatment)

text:
               27.8.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/30

      Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2018 — Pegasus v Parliament
      (Case T-57/17) (1)

      ((Institutional law - European Parliament - Decision awarding a grant to a political foundation - Pre-financing set at 33 % of the maximum amount of the grant awarded - Obligation to provide a bank pre-financing guarantee - Financial Regulation - Rules of Application of the Financial Regulation - Regulation (EC) No 2004/2003 on the regulations governing political parties at European level and the rules regarding their funding - Proportionality - Equal treatment))
      (2018/C 301/39)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Pegasus (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: P. Richter, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Görlitz, C. Burgos and S. Alves, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment in part of Decision FINS-2017-31 of the European Parliament of 12 December 2016 concerning the award of a grant to the applicant, in so far as that decision restricts the pre-financing to 33 % of the maximum amount of the grant and makes its payment subject to the provision of a bank guarantee.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Pegasus to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 78, 13.3.2017.


title: Case C-421/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Namur (Belgium) lodged on 27 June 2018 — Ordre des avocats du barreau de Dinant v JN

text:
               27.8.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/20

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Namur (Belgium) lodged on 27 June 2018 — Ordre des avocats du barreau de Dinant v JN
      (Case C-421/18)
      (2018/C 301/28)
      Language of the case: French

         Referring court

      Tribunal de première instance de Namur

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Ordre des avocats du barreau de Dinant

         Defendant: JN

         Question referred

      Is the action brought by a Bar Association seeking an order that one of its members pay the annual professional fees owed to it a matter ‘relating to a contract’ within the meaning of Article 7(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? (1)

         (1)  OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1.


title: Case T-352/18: Action brought on 5 June 2018 — Germann Avocats and XJ (*) v Commission

text:
                  27.8.2018

                  EN

                  Official Journal of the European Union

                  C 301/39

         Action brought on 5 June 2018 — Germann Avocats and  XJ (*1) v Commission
         (Case T-352/18)
         (2018/C 301/53)
         Language of the case: English

            Parties

            Applicants: Germann Avocats LLC (Geneva, Switzerland),  XJ (*1) (represented by: N. Skandamis, lawyer)

            Defendant: European Commission

            Form of order sought

                     —

                     annul the defendant’s decision contained in a letter received by the applicants on 2 April 2018, rejecting the joint tender submitted by them for a follow-up study on trade union practices on non-discrimination and diversity in the workplace (call for tenders JUST/2017/RDIS/FW/EQUA/0042);

                     —

                     order the defendant to provide legally satisfactory transparency in the form of pertinent information and quantitative and qualitative analysis concerning the competition-related situation pertaining in particular to the successful tenderer and in relation to diversity concerns in the relevant markets for the tender at issue;

                     —

                     order the defendant to pay damages in the amount of EUR 35 000, plus interest to the applicants, on account of the harm they allegedly suffered as a result of failure to respect their legitimate expectations, a loss of opportunity to perform the contract in question and infringement of other rights and principles;

                     —

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

            Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                     1.

                     First plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed the obligation to state reasons in its evaluation of their tender in respect of the call for tenders JUST/2017/RDIS/FW/EQUA/0042.

                     2.

                     Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed several manifest errors of assessment in its evaluation of the applicants’ tender in respect of the said call for tenders.

                     3.

                     Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated its duty to secure the applicants’ legitimate expectations as to a competitive market situation guaranteeing a level playing field among competitors, including by tolerating and/or favouring actual or possible abuses of dominant market positions, and that the defendant infringed the principles of equal treatment, sound administration, transparency and good faith in the procedure which led to the adoption of the contested decision.

            (*1)  Information erased or replaced within the framework of protection of personal data and/or confidentiality.


title: Case C-456/18 P: Appeal brought on 12 July 2018 by Hungary against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 25 April 2018 in Joined Cases T-554/15 and T-555/15, Hungary v European Commission

text:
               27.8.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/21

      Appeal brought on 12 July 2018 by Hungary against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 25 April 2018 in Joined Cases T-554/15 and T-555/15, Hungary v European Commission
      (Case C-456/18 P)
      (2018/C 301/29)
      Language of the case: Hungarian

         Parties

         Appellant: Hungary (represented by: Z. Fehér and G. Koós, acting as Agents)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      By its appeal, Hungary claims that the Court of Justice should:

                  —

                  set aside the judgment of the General Court of 25 April 2018 in Joined Cases T-554/15 and T-555/15;

                  —

                  annul in part Commission Decision C(2015) 4805 of 15 July 2015 on the health contribution of tobacco industry businesses in Hungary, in so far as that decision orders the suspension of the application of both the progressive tax rate of the health contribution and of the reduction of that contribution in the case of investments, as provided for in a dohányipari vállalkozások 2015. évi egészségügyi hozzájárulásáról szóló 2014. évi XCIV. törvény (Law No XCIV of 2014 on the health contribution for 2015 of tobacco industry businesses), adopted by the Hungarian Parliament;

                  —

                  annul in part Commission Decision C(2015) 4808 of 15 July 2015 on the 2014 amendment of the Hungarian food chain inspection fee in so far as that decision orders the suspension of the application of the progressive rate of the food chain inspection fee;

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Grounds of appeal and main arguments

      The Hungarian Government essentially bases its appeal on three arguments, in accordance with the criteria developed by the Court of Justice in its case-law.
      First, the Hungarian Government bases its appeal on the contention that the General Court misapplied the law in the examination of the connected pleas in law.
      Second, the General Court misconstrued, in respect of the obligation to state reasons, Article 296 TFEU and Article 41(1) of the Charter.
      Third, the Hungarian Government alleges an error of assessment which led to the complaints set out by Hungary not being properly considered and led to an inappropriate interpretation of the arguments put forward in its action.
      According to the Hungarian Government, the Commission failed fully to respect the relevant procedural rules and the duty to state reasons when it adopted the contested decisions, the facts were not accurately stated and the Commission made a manifest error of assessment and exceeded its powers. Although the examination of all of the foregoing was within the jurisdiction of the General Court, the latter failed to carry out such an examination or failed to do so properly.
      The Hungarian Government submits that, as a consequence, the General Court first misinterpreted Article 11(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (1) and misapplied the case-law of the Court of Justice concerning that article. Second, the General Court made an error of assessment when it incorrectly assessed - according to the Hungarian Government - the argument put forward in relation to the requirements of the principles of proportionality and equal treatment and wrongly drew the conclusion that consistency with earlier Commission decisions and with its practice was not essential from the perspective of legal certainty. Similarly, the General Court disregarded the argument of the Hungarian Government regarding whether the conditions for State aid were fulfilled and also ignored that relevant argument for the purposes of the suspension. Finally, the General Court also failed to fulfil its obligation to state reasons by drawing the conclusion, contrary to the view expressed by the Commission throughout the proceedings, that a condition for ordering the suspension of the decisions was that Hungary did not intend to implement them and the latter had been established in a satisfactory manner by the Commission in its decisions.

         (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).


title: Case T-397/18: Action brought on 29 June 2018 — Hugo’s Hotel v EUIPO — H’ugo’s (Hugo’s Burger Bar)

text:
               27.8.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/40

      Action brought on 29 June 2018 — Hugo’s Hotel v EUIPO — H’ugo’s (Hugo’s Burger Bar)
      (Case T-397/18)
      (2018/C 301/54)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Hugo’s Hotel Ltd (St. Julians, Malta) (represented by: R. Sladden, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: H’ugo’s GmbH (München, Germany)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

         Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark Hugo’s Burger Bar in red, black and white — Application for registration No 14 608 806

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 May 2018 in Case R 1879/2017-4

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  Overturn the Board of Appeal’s Decision;

                  —

                  Declare that the Application Number 014608806 may proceed to registration

         Pleas in law

                  —

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


title: Case T-644/16: Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2018 — ClientEarth v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Commission documents relating to the compatibility with EU law of Investor-State Dispute Settlement and the Investment Court System in EU trade agreements — Partial refusal of access — Exception concerning the protection of the public interest as regards international relations — Exception concerning the protection of legal advice — Exception concerning the protection of the decision-making process — Overriding public interest)

text:
               27.8.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/27

      Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2018 — ClientEarth v Commission
      (Case T-644/16) (1)

      ((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Commission documents relating to the compatibility with EU law of Investor-State Dispute Settlement and the Investment Court System in EU trade agreements - Partial refusal of access - Exception concerning the protection of the public interest as regards international relations - Exception concerning the protection of legal advice - Exception concerning the protection of the decision-making process - Overriding public interest))
      (2018/C 301/34)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: ClientEarth (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: O. Brouwer, lawyer, and N. Frey, Solicitor)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and J. Baquero Cruz, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2016) 4286 final of 1 July 2016, refusing access to certain documents relating to the compatibility with EU law of Investor-State Dispute Settlement and the Investment Court System in EU trade agreements.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders ClientEarth to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

         (1)  OJ C 402, 31.10.2016.


title: Joined Cases C-397/17 and C-398/17: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 12 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandstalige Rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brussel — Belgium) — Profit Europe NV v Belgische Staat (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 — Customs Union and Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Subheadings 7307 11 10, 7307 19 10 and 7307 19 90 — Cast tube or pipe fittings, of spheroidal graphite cast iron)

text:
               10.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/11

      Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 12 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandstalige Rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brussel — Belgium) — Profit Europe NV v Belgische Staat
      (Joined Cases C-397/17 and C-398/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 - Customs Union and Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Subheadings 7307 11 10, 7307 19 10 and 7307 19 90 - Cast tube or pipe fittings, of spheroidal graphite cast iron))
      (2018/C 319/13)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Referring court

      Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Profit Europe NV

         Defendant: Belgische Staat

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1001/2013 of 4 October 2013, must be interpreted as meaning that the cast tube or pipe fittings of spheroidal graphite cast iron must be classified under subheading 7307 19 90 thereof.

         (1)  OJ C 300, 11.9.2017.


title: Case T-432/18: Action brought on 13 July 2018 — Palo v Commission

text:
               10.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/23

      Action brought on 13 July 2018 — Palo v Commission
      (Case T-432/18)
      (2018/C 319/27)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Peeter Palo (Tallinn, Estonia) (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  annul the defendant’s decision of 5 October 2017 not to allocate the applicant the severance grant provided for under Article 12(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations;

                  —

                  annul the defendant’s decision of 10 April 2018 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 11 December 2017 directed against the abovementioned decision;

                  —

                  order the defendant to compensate the applicant for the material damage suffered by the applicant;

                  —

                  order the defendant to compensate the applicant for the non-material damage suffered by the applicant;

                  —

                  order the defendant to bear 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 infringement of Article 12(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations.

                  2.

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

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of good administration and of the duty of care.


title: Case T-433/18: Action brought on 13 July 2018 — Bax v ECB

text:
               17.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/52

      Action brought on 13 July 2018 — Bax v ECB
      (Case T-433/18)
      (2018/C 328/71)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Annemieke Bax (Frankfurt, Germany) (represented by: L. Levi and A. Champetier, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB)

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  annulment of the decision of the Executive Board of the ECB of 14 December 2017, rejecting the applicant’s application to benefit from the career transition support scheme put in place by the ECB;

                  —

                  if need be, annul the ECB decision of 8 May 2018 rejecting the applicant’s special appeal;

                  —

                  order the ECB to pay the applicant compensation for the non-material damage suffered in the amount of EUR 20 000;

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of transparency, non-discrimination and legal certainty.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging that decision SEC/EB/X/17/398a.rev-1/final (‘General Methodology for the Practical Implementation of the Career Transition Support Scheme (CTS)’) is illegal, inter alia because it breaches Decision ECB/2017/NP 19 of 17 May 2017.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to discharge its duty of care to the applicant.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging discrimination on grounds of sex, contrary to Directive 2006/54. (1)

                  5.

                  Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality owing to the application of disproportionate eligibility criteria.

         (1)  Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23).


title: Case C-121/17: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) — United Kingdom) — Teva UK Ltd, Accord Healthcare Ltd, Lupin Ltd, Lupin (Europe) Ltd, Generics (UK) Ltd, trading as ‘Mylan’ v Gilead Sciences Inc. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Medicinal products for human use — Treatment of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) — Originator medicines and generic medicines — Supplementary protection certificate — Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 — Article 3(a) — Conditions for obtaining — Concept of a ‘product protected by a basic patent in force’ — Criteria for assessment)

text:
               17.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/13

      Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) — United Kingdom) — Teva UK Ltd, Accord Healthcare Ltd, Lupin Ltd, Lupin (Europe) Ltd, Generics (UK) Ltd, trading as ‘Mylan’ v Gilead Sciences Inc.
      (Case C-121/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Medicinal products for human use - Treatment of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) - Originator medicines and generic medicines - Supplementary protection certificate - Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 - Article 3(a) - Conditions for obtaining - Concept of a ‘product protected by a basic patent in force’ - Criteria for assessment))
      (2018/C 328/15)
      Language of the case: English

         Referring court

      High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: Teva UK Ltd, Accord Healthcare Ltd, Lupin Ltd, Lupin (Europe) Ltd, Generics (UK) Ltd, trading as ‘Mylan’

         Defendant: Gilead Sciences Inc.

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 3(a) of Regulation No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009, concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products, must be interpreted as meaning that a product composed of several active ingredients with a combined effect is ‘protected by a basic patent in force’ within the meaning of that provision where, even if the combination of active ingredients of which that product is composed is not expressly mentioned in the claims of the basic patent, those claims relate necessarily and specifically to that combination. For that purpose, from the point of view of a person skilled in the art and on the basis of the prior art at the filing date or priority date of the basic patent:

                  —

                  the combination of those active ingredients must necessarily, in the light of the description and drawings of that patent, fall under the invention covered by that patent, and

                  —

                  each of those active ingredients must be specifically identifiable, in the light of all the information disclosed by that patent.

         (1)  OJ C 151, 15.5.2017.


title: Case T-439/18: Action brought on 13 July 2018 — Sintokogio v EUIPO (ProAssist)

text:
               17.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/53

      Action brought on 13 July 2018 — Sintokogio v EUIPO (ProAssist)
      (Case T-439/18)
      (2018/C 328/72)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Sintokogio Ltd (Nagoya, Japan) (represented by: V. Dalichau, S. Kirschstein-Freund, B. Breitinger, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark ProAssist — Application for registration No 1 327 746

         Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 May 2018 in Case R 2341/2017-2

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision concerning the EU Part of International Registration 1327746;

                  —

                  alternatively amend the contested decision concerning the EU Part of International Registration 1327746;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings and of the proceedings before the Court.

         Pleas in law

                  —

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

                  —

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

                  —

                  Infringement of the Principle of equal treatment and sound administration, Article 107 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.


title: Case C-216/18 PPU: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) — Ireland) — Execution of European arrest warrants issued against LM (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Article 1(3) — Surrender procedures between Member States — Conditions for execution — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 47 — Right of access to an independent and impartial tribunal)

text:
               17.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/22

      Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) — Ireland) — Execution of European arrest warrants issued against LM
      (Case C-216/18 PPU) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - European arrest warrant - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - Article 1(3) - Surrender procedures between Member States - Conditions for execution - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 47 - Right of access to an independent and impartial tribunal))
      (2018/C 328/28)
      Language of the case: English

         Referring court

      High Court (Ireland)

         Parties to the main proceedings

      LM

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 1(3) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that, where the executing judicial authority, called upon to decide whether a person in respect of whom a European arrest warrant has been issued for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution is to be surrendered, has material, such as that set out in a reasoned proposal of the European Commission adopted pursuant to Article 7(1) TEU, indicating that there is a real risk of breach of the fundamental right to a fair trial guaranteed by the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, on account of systemic or generalised deficiencies so far as concerns the independence of the issuing Member State’s judiciary, that authority must determine, specifically and precisely, whether, having regard to his personal situation, as well as to the nature of the offence for which he is being prosecuted and the factual context that form the basis of the European arrest warrant, and in the light of the information provided by the issuing Member State pursuant to Article 15(2) of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended, there are substantial grounds for believing that that person will run such a risk if he is surrendered to that State.

         (1)  OJ C 190, 4.6.2018.


title: Case T-608/16: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — PA v Parliament (Civil service — Officials — Staff report — 2014 appraisal period — Promotion — 2015 appraisal period — Obligation to state reasons — Misuse of power — Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights)

text:
               17.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/42

      Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — PA v Parliament
      (Case T-608/16) (1)

      ((Civil service - Officials - Staff report - 2014 appraisal period - Promotion - 2015 appraisal period - Obligation to state reasons - Misuse of power - Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights))
      (2018/C 328/57)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

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

         Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: L. Deneys and V. Montebello-Demogeot, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application based on Article 270 TFEU and seeking annulment, first, of the applicant’s staff report for 2014, as finalised by the decision of the Secretary-General of the Parliament of 20 October 2015, second, of the decision of the Secretary-General of the Parliament of 9 December 2015 awarding him one merit point for 2014, third, of the Parliament’s decision, communicated to the staff of that institution on 30 November 2015, not to promote the applicant to Grade AST 11 in the 2015 promotion exercise and, in so far as necessary, annulment of the Parliament’s decision of 9 June 2016 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 21 January 2016.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders PA to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 364 of 3.10.2016 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal as Case No F-38/16 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).


title: Case C-220/18 PPU: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht in Bremen — Germany) — Execution of a European arrest warrant issued against ML (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Article 1(3) — Surrender procedures between Member States — Conditions for execution — Grounds for non-execution — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 4 — Prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment — Detention conditions in the issuing Member State — Scope of the assessment undertaken by the executing judicial authorities — Existence of a legal remedy in the issuing Member State — Assurance given by the authorities of that Member State)

text:
               17.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/23

      Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht in Bremen — Germany) — Execution of a European arrest warrant issued against ML
      (Case C-220/18 PPU) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - European arrest warrant - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - Article 1(3) - Surrender procedures between Member States - Conditions for execution - Grounds for non-execution - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 4 - Prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment - Detention conditions in the issuing Member State - Scope of the assessment undertaken by the executing judicial authorities - Existence of a legal remedy in the issuing Member State - Assurance given by the authorities of that Member State))
      (2018/C 328/29)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht in Bremen

         Parties to the main proceedings

      ML

         Intervener: Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Bremen

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 1(3), Article 5 and Article 6(1) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that when the executing judicial authority has information showing there to be systemic or generalised deficiencies in the conditions of detention in the prisons of the issuing Member State, the accuracy of which must be verified by the referring court in the light of all the available updated data:

                  —

                  the executing judicial authority cannot rule out a real risk that the person in respect of whom a European arrest warrant has been issued for the purpose of executing a custodial sentence will be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, merely because that person has, in the issuing Member State, a legal remedy permitting him to challenge the conditions of his detention, although the existence of such a remedy may be taken into account by the executing judicial authority for the purpose of deciding on the surrender of the person concerned;

                  —

                  the executing judicial authority is required to assess only the conditions of detention in the prisons in which, according to the information available to it, it is likely that that person will be detained, including on a temporary or transitional basis;

                  —

                  the executing judicial authority must assess, to that end, solely the actual and precise conditions of detention of the person concerned that are relevant for determining whether that person will be exposed to a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights;

                  —

                  the executing judicial authority may take into account information provided by authorities of the issuing Member State other than the issuing judicial authority, such as, in particular, an assurance that the individual concerned will not be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

         (1)  OJ C 221, 25.6.2018.


title: Case T-745/16: Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — BPCE v ECB (Economic and monetary policy — Prudential supervision of credit institutions — Article 4(1)(d) and (3) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 — Calculation of the leverage ratio — The ECB’s refusal to authorise the applicant to exclude from the calculation of the leverage ratio the exposures fulfilling certain conditions — Article 429(14) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 — Discretion of the ECB — Errors of law — Manifest error of assessment)

text:
               17.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/43

      Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — BPCE v ECB
      (Case T-745/16) (1)

      ((Economic and monetary policy - Prudential supervision of credit institutions - Article 4(1)(d) and (3) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 - Calculation of the leverage ratio - The ECB’s refusal to authorise the applicant to exclude from the calculation of the leverage ratio the exposures fulfilling certain conditions - Article 429(14) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 - Discretion of the ECB - Errors of law - Manifest error of assessment))
      (2018/C 328/58)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: BPCE (Paris, France) (represented by: initially A. Gosset Grainville, C. Renner and P. Kupka, then A. Gosset-Grainville, P. Kupka and M. Trabucchi and finally A. Gosset-Grainville and M. Trabucchi, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: K. Lackhoff, R. Bax and G. Bassani, acting as Agents, and by H.-G. Kamann and F. Louis, lawyers)

         Interveners in support of the defendants: Republic of Finland (represented by: S. Hartikainen, acting as Agent)

         Re:

      Action based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Decision ECB/SSM/2016 9695005MSX1OYEMGDF46/195 of the ECB, of 24 August 2016, pursuant to Article 4(1)(d), of Article 10 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), and of Article 429(14) of 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, and corrigenda OJ 2013 L 208, p. 68 and OJ 2013 L 321, p. 6).

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls Decision ECB/SSM/2016 9695005MSX1OYEMGDF46/195 of the European Central Bank of 24 August 2016;

                  2.

                  Orders the ECB to pay the costs;

                  3.

                  Orders the Republic of Finland to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 6, 9.1.2017.


title: Case T-460/18: Action brought on 26 July 2018 — eSlovensko Bratislava v Commission

text:
               17.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/53

      Action brought on 26 July 2018 — eSlovensko Bratislava v Commission
      (Case T-460/18)
      (2018/C 328/73)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: eSlovensko Bratislava (Bratislava, Slovakia) (represented by: B. Fridrich, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  annul the decision of the Commission, concretely the individual legal act entitled ‘Payment by offsetting by outstanding claims and debts’ issued by the European Commission, Budget execution dept. (general budget and EDF), ref. BUDG/DGA/C4/LM/24307, issued on 22 June 2018;

                  —

                  order the Commission to proceed to pay the eligible costs to the applicant (registered ID No. 42412439), as the original beneficiary and the contractual party of Grant Agreement INEA/CEF/ICT/A2015/1154788, Action 2015-SK-IA-0038 — ‘Slovak Safer Internet Centre IV’, in accordance with that valid and effective grant agreement, and concretely Article 4.1.3 thereof;

                  —

                  order the Commission to reimburse the costs and expenses of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging the annulment of the contested decision on the basis of infringement of the rule of law relating to the application of the Treaties, especially improper legal evaluation of the circumstances and facts of offsetting, because the applicant (registered ID No. 42412439), according to the Plaumann principle, is directly concerned by this decision and there is a direct negative impact of the decision on it.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission be ordered to proceed to payment of the eligible costs to the applicant as the original beneficiary and the contractual party of the grant agreement No. INEA/CEF/ICT/A2015/1154788, Action 2015-SK-IA-0038 — ‘Slovak Safer Internet Centre IV’, in accordance with the valid and effective grant agreement, concretely article 4.1.3 thereof, based on the fact that the Commission has the competence to deal with issues of project implementation and financial transfers in relation to the valid and effective contract between the Commission and the applicant.

                              —

                              The Commission’s contested decision relies on Article 68 of the Financial regulation, (1) stating that ‘It is necessary to lay down the rules relating to the property inventory and to clarify the respective responsibilities in this field of the accounting officers and authorising officers, as well as the rules applicable to the resale of property entered in the inventory with the view to an efficient asset management.’ In this sense, the applicant underlines that the Commission had several times been informed by the applicant that the Commission’s proceedings against it had been confused with another organisation, which operated in previous projects of a similar character.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission be ordered to reimburse the costs and expenses of the proceedings. In accordance with the above-mentioned arguments and the allegedly arbitrary character of the contested decision, the applicant requests the Court to reimburse costs and expenses connected with the proceedings before it as well as the costs and expenses spent for the legal assistance in relation to the claim.

         (1)  Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (OJ 2012 L 298, p. 1).


title: Case T-464/18: Action brought on 31 July 2018 — Grupo Bimbo v EUIPO — Rubio Snacks (Tia Rosa)

text:
               17.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/54

      Action brought on 31 July 2018 — Grupo Bimbo v EUIPO — Rubio Snacks (Tia Rosa)
      (Case T-464/18)
      (2018/C 328/74)
      Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

         Parties

         Applicant: Grupo Bimbo, SAB de CV (Mexico, Mexico) (represented by: N. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Rubio Snacks, SL (Bullas, Spain)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

         Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark Tia Rosa — Application for registration No 14 442 883

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 May 2018 in Case R 2739/2017-5

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision, in so far as the latter confirmed the opposition 002628793 upheld against European Union figurative mark No 14 442 883 Tia Rosa in relation to the following goods in Class 30:

                     Cereal preparations; Tortillas; Taco chips; Tacos; Tacos; Crackers; Crackers flavoured with spices; Cereal bars; High-protein cereal bars; Cereals; Bread; Bread; Unleavened bread; Breadcrumbs; Bread rolls; Wholemeal bread; Multigrain bread; Rusks; Farinaceous foods; Snack food products consisting of cereal products; Snack food products made from maize flour; Ready to eat savory snack foods made from maize meal formed by extrusion; Snack foods made from corn; Snack foods made from wheat; Sesame snacks; Crisps made from cereals; Puffed corn snacks; Popcorn; Flavoured popcorn; The aforesaid goods expressly not including any kind of products based on potato.

                  —

                  confirm the registration of European Union trade mark No 14 442 883 Tia Rosa for all the goods in respect of which protection is claimed;

                  —

                  order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs and expenses of the proceedings before EUIPO and the General Court.

         Plea in law

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


title: Case C-674/16 P: Order of the President of the Court of 7 June 2018 — Guccio Gucci SpA v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Guess? IP Holder LP

text:
               24.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 341/10

      Order of the President of the Court of 7 June 2018 — Guccio Gucci SpA v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Guess? IP Holder LP
      (Case C-674/16 P) (1)

      (2018/C 341/12)
      Language of the case: English
      The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 144, 8.5.2017.


title: Case T-465/18: Action brought on 25 July 2018 — Eurolamp v EUIPO (EUROLAMP pioneers in new technology)

text:
               24.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 341/24

      Action brought on 25 July 2018 — Eurolamp v EUIPO (EUROLAMP pioneers in new technology)
      (Case T-465/18)
      (2018/C 341/35)
      Language of the case: Greek

         Parties

         Applicant: Eurolamp AVEE Eisagogis kai Emporias Lamptiron (Thessaloniki, Greece) (represented by: A. Argyriadis, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Trade mark at issue: Application for registration in the European Union of the word mark ‘EUROLAMP pioneers in new technology’ — Application for registration No 16 180 879

         Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 May 2018 in Case R 1358/2017-1

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the General Court should:

                  —

                  hold this action to be admissible;

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  uphold in its entirety the application No 16 180 879 for trade mark registration in the European Union with respect to all the claimed goods;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation 2017/1001;

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001.


title: Case C-61/18: Order of the President of the Court of 4 June 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria

text:
               24.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 341/12

      Order of the President of the Court of 4 June 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria
      (Case C-61/18) (1)

      (2018/C 341/19)
      Language of the case: Bulgarian
      The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 112, 26.3.2018.


title: Case T-377/17: Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — SQ v EIB (Civil Service — EIB staff — Complaint of psychological harassment — Administrative enquiry — Concept of ‘psychological harassment’ — Requirement that the conduct complained of must be repetitive in order to constitute ‘psychological harassment’ — Refusal to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the person responsible for that conduct — Duty of confidentiality in relation to an ongoing administrative enquiry and, subsequently, to the decision terminating the procedure finding that there had been psychological harassment)

text:
               24.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 341/16

      Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — SQ v EIB
      (Case T-377/17) (1)

      ((Civil Service - EIB staff - Complaint of psychological harassment - Administrative enquiry - Concept of ‘psychological harassment’ - Requirement that the conduct complained of must be repetitive in order to constitute ‘psychological harassment’ - Refusal to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the person responsible for that conduct - Duty of confidentiality in relation to an ongoing administrative enquiry and, subsequently, to the decision terminating the procedure finding that there had been psychological harassment))
      (2018/C 341/27)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: SQ (represented by: N. Cambonie and P. Walter, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Investment Bank (EIB) (represented by: G. Faedo and K. Carr, acting as Agents, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer, and J. Currall, Barrister)

         Re:

      Application under Article 50a(1) of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and Article 41 of the EIB Staff Regulations seeking, first, the partial annulment of the decision of the President of the EIB of 20 March 2017 and, second, compensation in respect of the material and non-material damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of psychological harassment by her superior and the EIB’s conduct.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls in part the decision of the President of the European Investment Bank (EIB) of 20 March 2017, in so far as it applies an incorrect definition of the concept of ‘psychological harassment’, does not provide for immediate disciplinary action in the event of a proven case of psychological harassment within the EIB, and imposes a duty of confidentiality on the addressee of that decision, contrary to the purposes of an investigation procedure concerning an alleged case of psychological harassment;

                  2.

                  Dismisses the remainder of the claims for annulment;

                  3.

                  Orders the EIB to pay to SQ, in respect of the non-material damage suffered, an amount of EUR 10 000;

                  4.

                  Dismisses the remainder of the claims for compensation;

                  5.

                  Orders the EIB to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by SQ;

                  6.

                  Orders SQ to bear half of her own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 277, 21.8.2017.


title: Case T-466/18: Action brought on 25 July 2018 — Eurolamp v EUIPO (EUROLAMP pioneers in new technology)

text:
               24.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 341/25

      Action brought on 25 July 2018 — Eurolamp v EUIPO (EUROLAMP pioneers in new technology)
      (Case T-466/18)
      (2018/C 341/36)
      Language of the case: Greek

         Parties

         Applicant: Eurolamp AVEE Eisagogis kai Emporias Lamptiron (Thessaloniki, Greece) (represented by: A. Argyriadis, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Trade mark at issue: Application for registration in the European Union of the figurative colour mark ‘EUROLAMP pioneers in new technology’ representing a combination of the following colours: green and black — Application for registration No 16 180 821

         Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 May 2018 in Case R 1359/2017-1

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the General Court should:

                  —

                  hold this action to be admissible;

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  uphold in its entirety the application No 16 180 821 for trade mark registration in the European Union with respect to all the claimed goods;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation 2017/1001;

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001.


title: Case C-116/18: Order of the President of the Court of 13 June 2018 — European Commission v Romania

text:
               24.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 341/12

      Order of the President of the Court of 13 June 2018 — European Commission v Romania
      (Case C-116/18) (1)

      (2018/C 341/20)
      Language of the case: Romanian
      The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 142, 23.4.2018.


title: Case T-379/18: Action brought on 22 June 2018 — WI v Commission

text:
               24.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 341/16

      Action brought on 22 June 2018 — WI v Commission
      (Case T-379/18)
      (2018/C 341/28)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: WI (represented by: T. Bontinck and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decisions;

                  —

                  order the payment of a surviving spouse’s pension to [WI];

                  —

                  order the European Commission to pay the costs

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of his action challenging the decision of the European Commission’s Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (PMO) dated 16 August 2017 refusing to grant the applicant a survivor’s pension, and the confirmatory decision, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging a manifest error in the assessment of the term ‘surviving spouse’ and infringement of Article 1d(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) and Article 17 of Annex VIII thereto, in so far as the Commission based its reasoning on a restrictive and erroneous interpretation of the term ‘surviving spouse’ provided for by the Staff Regulations for the purposes of rejecting the applicant’s request for recognition of his status as a surviving spouse.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of sound administration and of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials in so far as, according to the applicant, the Commission should have taken into account the exceptional circumstances of the case in order to interpret Article 17 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations as meaning that the applicant may be entitled as of right to a pension by way of his status as a surviving spouse.


title: Case T-771/16: Judgment of the General Court of 22 November 2017 — Toontrack Music v EUIPO (EZMIX) (European Union trade mark — Application for EU word mark EZMIX — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Equal treatment and principle of sound administration)

text:
               15.1.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/17

         Judgment of the General Court of 22 November 2017 — Toontrack Music v EUIPO (EZMIX)
   (Case T-771/16) (1)

   ((European Union trade mark - Application for EU word mark EZMIX - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Equal treatment and principle of sound administration))
   (2018/C 013/28)
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Parties

      Applicant: Toontrack Music AB (Umeå, Sweden) (represented by: L.-E. Ström, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 July 2016 (Case R 2436/2015-5) concerning an application for registration of word mark EZMIX as an EU trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Toontrack Music AB to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 14, 16.1.2017.


title: Case C-418/17: Order of the President of the Court of 25 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Nürnberg — Germany) — Andreas Fabri, Elisabeth Mathes v Sun Express Deutschland GmbH

text:
               15.1.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/11

         Order of the President of the Court of 25 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Nürnberg — Germany) — Andreas Fabri, Elisabeth Mathes v Sun Express Deutschland GmbH
   (Case C-418/17) (1)

   (2018/C 013/19)
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 347, 16.10.2017.