title: Case T-643/13: Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2018 — Rogesa v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading — Request for access to information relating to the determination of the most efficient 10 % of the steel industry installations — Refusal of access — Exception relating to the protection of the commercial interests of a third party — Overriding public interest — Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 — Concept of information relating to emissions into the environment — Observance of time-limits)

text:
               27.8.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/23

      Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2018 — Rogesa v Commission
      (Case T-643/13) (1)

      ((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading - Request for access to information relating to the determination of the most efficient 10 % of the steel industry installations - Refusal of access - Exception relating to the protection of the commercial interests of a third party - Overriding public interest - Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 - Concept of information relating to emissions into the environment - Observance of time-limits))
      (2018/C 301/30)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Rogesa Roheisengesellschaft Saar mbH (Dillingen, Germany) (represented by: S. Altenschmidt and P.-A. Schütter, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and B. Martenczuk initially, then F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and H. Krämer, Agents)

         Re:

      Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, seeking the annulment of the Commission decision dated 25 September 2013 refusing to grant the applicant access to documents which contain information on the basis of assessment used by the Commission to determine the most efficient 10 % of the installations used as a starting point for defining the principles for setting ex ante benchmarks, in accordance with Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32).

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Rogesa Roheisengesellschaft Saar mbH to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 45, 15.2.2014.


title: Case T-400/18: Action brought on 2 July 2018 — Landesbank Baden-Württemberg v SRB

text:
               27.8.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/41

      Action brought on 2 July 2018 — Landesbank Baden-Württemberg v SRB
      (Case T-400/18)
      (2018/C 301/55)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Landesbank Baden-Württemberg (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: H. Berger and K. Rübsamen, lawyers)

         Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the Single Resolution Board’s decision of 12 April 2018 concerning the calculation of the ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund for 2018 (SRB/ES/SRF/2018/03), including the Annex thereto, in so far as the contested decision, including the Annex thereto, concerns the applicant’s contribution;

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to the pleas in law relied on in Case T-411/17, Landesbank Baden-Württemberg v SRB. (1)

         (1)  OJ 2017 C 277, p. 51.


title: Case T-694/17: Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2018 — Link Entertainment v EUIPO — García-Sanjuan Machado (SAVORY DELICIOUS ARTISTS & EVENTS) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark SAVORY DELICIOUS ARTISTS & EVENTS — Earlier EU word mark AVORY — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Similarity of the services — Articles 8(1)(b) and 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Articles 8(1)(b) and 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

text:
               27.8.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/31

      Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2018 — Link Entertainment v EUIPO — García-Sanjuan Machado (SAVORY DELICIOUS ARTISTS & EVENTS)
      (Case T-694/17) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark SAVORY DELICIOUS ARTISTS & EVENTS - Earlier EU word mark AVORY - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Similarity of the services - Articles 8(1)(b) and 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Articles 8(1)(b) and 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
      (2018/C 301/40)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Applicant: Link Entertainment, SLU (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: E. Estella Garbayo, lawyer)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Sandra García-Sanjuan Machado (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: E. Torner Lasalle, lawyer)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 July 2017 (Case R 1758/2016-4) relating to invalidity proceedings between Ms García-Sanjuan Machado and Link Entertainment.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Link Entertainment, SLU to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 402, 27.11.2017.


title: Case T-403/18: Action brought on 2 July 2018 — Pharmadom v EUIPO — Objectif Pharma (W S wellpharma shop)

text:
               27.8.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/42

      Action brought on 2 July 2018 — Pharmadom v EUIPO — Objectif Pharma (W S wellpharma shop)
      (Case T-403/18)
      (2018/C 301/56)
      Language in which the application was lodged: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Pharmadom (Boulogne-Billancourt, France) (represented by: M.-P. Dauquaire, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Objectif Pharma (Vandoeuvre-lès-Nancy, France)

         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 ‘W S wellpharma shop’ — Application for registration No 14 494 751

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 March 2018 in Case R 1448/2017-5

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  refuse the EU trade mark application for all the goods and services covered;

                  —

                  order EUIPO, and Objectif Pharma if it decides to intervene in the proceedings, to pay the costs.

         Plea in law

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


title: Case T-185/15: Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2018 — Buonotourist v Commission (State aid — Undertaking operating networks of bus routes in the Regione Campania — Advantage — Service of general economic interest — Compensation for tariff obligations as a result of public service obligations, paid following a decision of a court ruling at final instance — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market — Existing aid and new aid — Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 — Conditions for exemption from the requirement for notification — Article 4(5) and Article 7(6) of Regulation (EC) No 659/99 — Respective jurisdictions of the Commission and the national courts in respect of the monitoring of State aid — Force of res judicata of a judgment of a higher national court — Temporal application of the rules of substantive law — Legitimate expectations — Legal certainty)

text:
               27.8.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/24

      Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2018 — Buonotourist v Commission
      (Case T-185/15) (1)

      ((State aid - Undertaking operating networks of bus routes in the Regione Campania - Advantage - Service of general economic interest - Compensation for tariff obligations as a result of public service obligations, paid following a decision of a court ruling at final instance - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market - Existing aid and new aid - Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 - Conditions for exemption from the requirement for notification - Article 4(5) and Article 7(6) of Regulation (EC) No 659/99 - Respective jurisdictions of the Commission and the national courts in respect of the monitoring of State aid - Force of res judicata of a judgment of a higher national court - Temporal application of the rules of substantive law - Legitimate expectations - Legal certainty))
      (2018/C 301/31)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: Buonotourist Srl (Castel San Giorgio, Italy) (represented by: G. Capo and L. Visone, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Armati, G. Conte and P.-J. Loewenthal, agents)

         Intervener in support of the applicant: Associazione Nazionale Autotrasporto Viaggiatori (ANAV) (Rome, Italy)(represented by: M. Malena, lawyer)

         Re:

      Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1075 of 19 January 2015 on State aid SA.35843 (2014/C) (ex 2012/NN) implemented by Italy — Additional public service compensation for Buonotourist (OJ 2015 L 179, p. 128)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Buonotourist Srl, in addition to bearing its own costs, to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

                  3.

                  Declares that the Associazione Nazionale Autotrasporto Viaggiatori (ANAV) is to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 190,8.6.2015.


title: Case T-414/18: Action brought on 5 July 2018 — Hypo Vorarlberg Bank v SRB

text:
               27.8.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/42

      Action brought on 5 July 2018 — Hypo Vorarlberg Bank v SRB
      (Case T-414/18)
      (2018/C 301/57)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Hypo Vorarlberg Bank AG (Bregenz, Austria) (represented by: G. Eisenberger, lawyer)

         Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the Decision of the Single Resolution Board of 12 April 2018 on the calculation of the 2018 ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2018/03), including the Annex thereto, in any event in so far as the contested decision, including the Annex thereto, concerns the contribution to be paid by the applicant; and

                  —

                  order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  Infringement of essential procedural requirements due to incomplete notification of the contested decision.

                  2.

                  Infringement of essential procedural requirements due to a failure to state sufficient reasons in the contested decision.

                  3.

                  Infringement of essential procedural requirements due to the absence of a hearing and the failure to observe the right to a fair hearing.

                  4.

                  Unlawfulness of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 (1) as a basis for the contested decision.
                  In the context of the fourth plea in law, the applicant submits that Articles 4 to 7 and 9 of, as well as Annex I to, Delegated Regulation 2015/63 — provisions which form the basis for the contested decision — establish an opaque system for the setting of contributions, which is contrary to Articles 16, 17 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) and pursuant to which compliance with Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter and observance of the principles of proportionality and legal certainty are not ensured.

         (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).


title: Case T-186/15: Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2018 — CSTP Azienda delle Mobilità v Commission (State aid — Undertaking operating networks of bus routes in the Regione Campania — Advantage — Service of general economic interest — Compensation for tariff obligations as a result of public service obligations, paid following a decision of a court ruling at final instance — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market — Existing aid and new aid — Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 — Conditions for exemption from the requirement for notification — Article 4(5) and Article 7(6) of Regulation (EC) No 659/99 — Respective jurisdictions of the Commission and the national courts in respect of the monitoring of State aid — Force of res judicata of a judgment of a higher national court — Temporal application of the rules of substantive law — Legitimate expectations — Legal certainty)

text:
               27.8.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/25

      Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2018 — CSTP Azienda delle Mobilità v Commission
      (Case T-186/15) (1)

      ((State aid - Undertaking operating networks of bus routes in the Regione Campania - Advantage - Service of general economic interest - Compensation for tariff obligations as a result of public service obligations, paid following a decision of a court ruling at final instance - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market - Existing aid and new aid - Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 - Conditions for exemption from the requirement for notification - Article 4(5) and Article 7(6) of Regulation (EC) No 659/99 - Respective jurisdictions of the Commission and the national courts in respect of the monitoring of State aid - Force of res judicata of a judgment of a higher national court - Temporal application of the rules of substantive law - Legitimate expectations - Legal certainty))
      (2018/C 301/32)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: CSTP Azienda delle Mobilità SpA (Salerno, Italy) (represented by: G. Capo and L. Visone, lawyers)

         Defendants: European Commission (represented by: L. Armati, G. Conte and P.-J. Loewenthal, Agents)

         Intervener in support of the applicant: Asstra Associazione Trasporti (Rome, Italy) (represented by: M. Malena, lawyer)

         Re:

      Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1074 of 19 January 2015 on State aid SA.35842 (2014/C) (ex 2012/NN) implemented by Italy — Additional public service compensation for CSTP (OJ 2015 L 179, p. 112).

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders CSTP Azienda delle Mobilità SpA, in addition to bearing its own costs, to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

                  3.

                  Declares that Asstra Associazione Trasporti is to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 190, 8.6.2015.


title: Case T-147/15: Order of the General Court of 28 June 2018 — Czech Republic v Commission (Actions for annulment — European Union’s own resources — Financial responsibility of the Member States — Application to be exempted from making available own resources — Letter from the Commission — Act not open to challenge — Inadmissibility)

text:
               27.8.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/31

      Order of the General Court of 28 June 2018 — Czech Republic v Commission
      (Case T-147/15) (1)

      ((Actions for annulment - European Union’s own resources - Financial responsibility of the Member States - Application to be exempted from making available own resources - Letter from the Commission - Act not open to challenge - Inadmissibility))
      (2018/C 301/41)
      Language of the case: Czech

         Parties

         Applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, T. Müller, J. Vláčil and J. Očková, acting as Agents)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Caeiros and Z. Malůšková, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision allegedly made by the director of the directorate ‘Own resources and financial programming’ of the Directorate-General for Budget of the Commission contained in the letter with reference Ares (2015) 217973 of 20 January 2015 by which the latter dismissed the application to be exempted from making available own resources in an amount of CZK 53 976 340 submitted pursuant to Article 17(2) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources (OJ 2000 L 130, p. 1), and requested the Czech authorities to take the necessary measures to credit the Commission’s account with the amount of CZK 53 976 340, at the latest on the first working day following the nineteenth day of the second month following the dispatch of the letter concerned, at the risk of having to pay default interest pursuant to Article 11 of that regulation.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The action is dismissed.

                  2.

                  There is no need to rule on the Slovak Republic’s application to intervene.

                  3.

                  The Czech Republic shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

         (1)  OJ C 213, 29.6.2015.


title: Case C-27/17: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos apeliacinis teismas — Lithuania) — AB ‘flyLAL-Lithuanian Airlines’, in liquidation v ‘Starptautiskā lidosta “Rīga”’ VAS, ‘Air Baltic Corporation’ AS (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Special jurisdiction — Article 5(3) — Tort, delict or quasi-delict — Place where the harmful event occurred — Place where the damage occurred and place of the event giving rise to the damage — Claim for compensation for damage allegedly caused by anticompetitive conduct committed in various Member States — Article 5(5) — Operations of a branch — Meaning)

text:
               27.8.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/4

      Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos apeliacinis teismas — Lithuania) — AB ‘flyLAL-Lithuanian Airlines’, in liquidation v ‘Starptautiskā lidosta “Rīga”’ VAS, ‘Air Baltic Corporation’ AS
      (Case C-27/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Special jurisdiction - Article 5(3) - Tort, delict or quasi-delict - Place where the harmful event occurred - Place where the damage occurred and place of the event giving rise to the damage - Claim for compensation for damage allegedly caused by anticompetitive conduct committed in various Member States - Article 5(5) - Operations of a branch - Meaning))
      (2018/C 301/05)
      Language of the case: Lithuanian

         Referring court

      Lietuvos apeliacinis teismas

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: AB ‘flyLAL-Lithuanian Airlines’, in liquidation

         Defendants:‘Starptautiskā lidosta “Rīga”’ VAS, ‘Air Baltic Corporation’ AS

         Interveners:‘ŽIA Valda’ AB, ‘VA Reals’ AB, Lietuvos Respublikos konkurencijos taryba

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of an action seeking compensation for damage caused by anticompetitive conduct, the ‘place where the harmful event occurred’ covers, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, inter alia, the place where the loss of income consisting in loss of sales occurred, that is to say, the place of the market which is affected by that conduct and on which the victim claims to have suffered those losses.

                  2.

                  Article 5(3) of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of an action seeking compensation for damage caused by anticompetitive conduct, the notion ‘place where the harmful event occurred’ may be understood to mean either the place of conclusion of an anticompetitive agreement contrary to Article 101 TFEU, or the place in which the predatory prices were offered and applied in cases where such practices constituted an infringement of Article 102 TFEU.

                  3.

                  Article 5(5) of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that the notion of a ‘dispute arising out of the operations of a branch’ covers an action seeking compensation for damage allegedly caused by abuse of a dominant position consisting of the application of predatory pricing, where a branch of the undertaking which holds the dominant position actually and significantly participated in that abusive practice.

         (1)  OJ C 104, 3.4.2017.


title: Case T-478/15: Order of the General Court of 28 June 2018 — Romania v Commission (Actions for annulment — European Union’s own resources — Financial responsibility of the Member States — Obligation to pay the Commission the amount corresponding to a loss of own resources — Letter from the Commission — Act not open to challenge — Inadmissibility)

text:
               27.8.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/32

      Order of the General Court of 28 June 2018 — Romania v Commission
      (Case T-478/15) (1)

      ((Actions for annulment - European Union’s own resources - Financial responsibility of the Member States - Obligation to pay the Commission the amount corresponding to a loss of own resources - Letter from the Commission - Act not open to challenge - Inadmissibility))
      (2018/C 301/42)
      Language of the case: Romanian

         Parties

         Applicant: Romania (represented initially by R.-H. Radu, A. Buzoianu and E. Gane, subsequently by R.-H. Radu, E. Gane, A. Wellman and M. Chicu, acting as Agents)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by A. Caeiros and A. Ştefănuc, subsequently by A. Caeiros and G.-D. Balan, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the Directorate-General for Budget of the Commission which is contained in the letter with reference Ares (2015) 2453089 of 11 June 2015 by which the latter ordered Romania to provide it with the gross amount of EUR 1 079 513,09, from which 25 % should be deducted for collection costs, corresponding to a loss of traditional own resources, at the latest on the first working day following the nineteenth day of the second month following the dispatch of that letter, at the risk of having to pay default interest pursuant to Article 11 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources (OJ 2000 L 130, p. 1).

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The action is dismissed.

                  2.

                  There is no need to rule on the Slovak Republic’s application to intervene.

                  3.

                  Romania is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those by the European Commission.

                  4.

                  Romania, the Commission and the Slovak Republic shall each bear their own costs relating to the latter’s application to intervene.

         (1)  OJ C 346, 19.10.2015.


title: Case T-424/18: Action brought on 11 July 2018 — Puma v EUIPO — Carrefour (Representation of crossed lines)

text:
               27.8.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/43

      Action brought on 11 July 2018 — Puma v EUIPO — Carrefour (Representation of crossed lines)
      (Case T-424/18)
      (2018/C 301/58)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: P. Trieb and M. Schunke, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Carrefour SA (Boulogne Billancourt, France)

         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: Application for European Union figurative mark (Representation of crossed lines — Application for registration No 14 572 697

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 May 2018 in Case R 945/2017-2

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

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

         Plea in law

                  —

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


title: Case C-40/18 P: Appeal brought on 12 January 2018 by Acquafarm S.L. against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 16 November 2017 in Case T-458/16, Acquafarm v Commission

text:
               27.8.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/12

      Appeal brought on 12 January 2018 by Acquafarm S.L. against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 16 November 2017 in Case T-458/16, Acquafarm v Commission
      (Case C-40/18 P)
      (2018/C 301/16)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Appellant: Acquafarm S.L. (represented by: A. Pérez Moreno, abogado)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
      By order of 12 July 2018, the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered Acquafarm S.L. to pay its own costs.


title: Case T-452/17: Order of the General Court of 28 June 2018 — TL v EDPS (Actions for annulment — Protection of personal data — Public nature of the case-law of the General Court — Request for anonymisation and removal from the Internet of a judgment of the General Court — Act not open to challenge — Confirmatory act — No new and substantial facts — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               27.8.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/33

      Order of the General Court of 28 June 2018 — TL v EDPS
      (Case T-452/17) (1)

      ((Actions for annulment - Protection of personal data - Public nature of the case-law of the General Court - Request for anonymisation and removal from the Internet of a judgment of the General Court - Act not open to challenge - Confirmatory act - No new and substantial facts - Manifest inadmissibility))
      (2018/C 301/43)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: TL (represented by: T. Léonard and M. Cock, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) (represented by: A. Buchta, M. Pérez Asinari, C. Gayrel and M. Guglielmetti, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the EDPS of 16 May 2017 rejecting the request seeking, in essence, (i) a new analysis of the question of its jurisdiction in relation to the dissemination on the Internet of the name of a party to proceedings by the Court of Justice of the European Union and (ii) an order that the judgment in [confidential] be anonymised.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

                  2.

                  TL and the European Data Protection Supervisor shall each bear their own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 347, 16.10.2017.


title: Case C-28/17: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret — Denmark) — NN A/S v Skatteministeriet (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 49 TFEU — Corporation tax — National tax legislation making the transfer of the losses sustained by a permanent establishment, situated on national territory, of a company established in another Member State, to a resident company belonging to the same group, subject to a condition as to the impossibility of using such losses for the purpose of a foreign tax)

text:
               27.8.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/5

      Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret — Denmark) — NN A/S v Skatteministeriet
      (Case C-28/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 49 TFEU - Corporation tax - National tax legislation making the transfer of the losses sustained by a permanent establishment, situated on national territory, of a company established in another Member State, to a resident company belonging to the same group, subject to a condition as to the impossibility of using such losses for the purpose of a foreign tax))
      (2018/C 301/06)
      Language of the case: Danish

         Referring court

      Østre Landsret

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: NN A/S

         Defendant: Skatteministeriet

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding, in principle, national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, pursuant to which the resident companies in a group are permitted to deduct, from their group profits, the losses sustained by a resident permanent establishment of a non-resident subsidiary of that group only in the case where the rules applicable in the Member State in which that subsidiary has its registered office do not permit those losses to be deducted from the latter’s profits, when the application of that legislation is combined with that of a convention preventing double taxation allowing, in the latter Member State, the deduction from the income tax payable by the subsidiary of a sum corresponding to the income tax paid, in the Member State on the territory of which that permanent establishment is situated, in respect of the latter’s activity. However, Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding such legislation in the case where the effect of its application is to deprive that group of any effective possibility of deducting those losses from the group’s overall profits, where it is not possible to set off those losses against that subsidiary’s profits in the Member State on the territory of which that subsidiary is established, these being matters for the referring court to verify.

         (1)  OJ C 121, 18.4.2017.


title: Case T-240/16: Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2018 –Klyuyev v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Ukraine — Freezing of funds — List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Retention of the applicant’s name on the list — Legal basis — Manifest error of assessment — Rights of defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Right to property — Right to reputation — Plea of illegality)

text:
               27.8.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/26

      Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2018 –Klyuyev v Council
      (Case T-240/16) (1)

      ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Ukraine - Freezing of funds - List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Retention of the applicant’s name on the list - Legal basis - Manifest error of assessment - Rights of defence - Right to effective judicial protection - Right to property - Right to reputation - Plea of illegality))
      (2018/C 301/33)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Andriy Klyuyev (Donetsk, Ukraine) (represented by: B. Kennelly, QC, J. Pobjoy, Barrister, R. Gherson and T. Garner, Solicitors)

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

         Re:

      APPLICATION under Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment, first, of Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/318 of 4 March 2016 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2016 L 60, p. 76) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/311 of 4 March 2016 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2016 L 60, p. 1) and, second, of Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/381 of 3 March 2017 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2017 L 58, p. 34) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/374 of 3 March 2017 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2017 L 58, p. 1), in so far as the applicant’s name was retained on the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to those restrictive measures.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/381 of 3 March 2017 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/374 of 3 March 2017 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine in so far as Mr Andriy Klyuyev’s name was retained on the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to those restrictive measures;

                  2.

                  Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

                  3.

                  Orders Mr Klyuyev to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union in relation to the claim for annulment made in the application;

                  4.

                  Orders the Council to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Klyuyev in relation to the claim for annulment in part of Decision 2017/381 and of Implementing Regulation 2017/374 made in the statement of modification.

         (1)  OJ C 270, 25.7.2016.


title: Case T-476/17 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 22 June 2018 — Arysta LifeScience Netherlands v Commission (Application for interim measures — Plant protection products — Active substance diflubenzuron — Conditions of approval for placing on the market — Application for suspension of operation — Lack of urgency — Balancing of interests)

text:
               27.8.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/34

      Order of the President of the General Court of 22 June 2018 — Arysta LifeScience Netherlands v Commission
      (Case T-476/17 R)
      ((Application for interim measures - Plant protection products - Active substance diflubenzuron - Conditions of approval for placing on the market - Application for suspension of operation - Lack of urgency - Balancing of interests))
      (2018/C 301/44)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicants: Arysta LifeScience Netherlands BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by C. Mereu and M. Grunchard, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Lewis, I. Naglis and G. Koleva, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application based on Articles 278 and 279 TFEU, seeking suspension of the operation of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/855 of 18 May 2017 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 as regards the conditions of approval of the active substance diflubenzuron (OJ 2017 L 128, p. 10)

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The application for interim measures is dismissed.

                  2.

                  The costs are reserved.


title: Case C-43/17 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 5 July 2018 — Liam Jenkinson v European External Action Service, Council of the European Union, European Commission, Eulex Kosovo (Appeal — Arbitration clause — Staff of international missions of the European Union — Jurisdiction to rule on disputes concerning employment contracts — Consecutive fixed-term contracts — Arbitration clauses conferring jurisdiction, in the final contract, on the Courts of the European Union, and, in the previous contracts, on the Brussels (Belgium) courts — Decision not to renew the final contract — Claim that all the contractual relationships should be recategorised as a ‘contract of indefinite duration’ — Claims for compensation for unfair dismissal — Contractual relationships prior to the final contract to be taken into account — Jurisdiction of the General Court of the European Union)

text:
               27.8.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/6

      Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 5 July 2018 — Liam Jenkinson v European External Action Service, Council of the European Union, European Commission, Eulex Kosovo
      (Case C-43/17 P) (1)

      ((Appeal - Arbitration clause - Staff of international missions of the European Union - Jurisdiction to rule on disputes concerning employment contracts - Consecutive fixed-term contracts - Arbitration clauses conferring jurisdiction, in the final contract, on the Courts of the European Union, and, in the previous contracts, on the Brussels (Belgium) courts - Decision not to renew the final contract - Claim that all the contractual relationships should be recategorised as a ‘contract of indefinite duration’ - Claims for compensation for unfair dismissal - Contractual relationships prior to the final contract to be taken into account - Jurisdiction of the General Court of the European Union))
      (2018/C 301/07)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Appellant: Liam Jenkinson (represented by: N. de Montigny and J.-N. Louis, avocats)

         Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Vitro and M. Bishop, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented initially by: G. Gattinara, L. Radu Bouyon and S. Bartelt, acting as Agents, and subsequently by G. Gattinara, A. Aresu and L. Radu Bouyon, acting as Agents), European External Action Service (EEAS) (represented by: S. Marquardt, R. Spac and E. Orgován, acting as Agents), Eulex Kosovo (represented by: M. Vicente Hernandez, avocate, and subsequently by E. Raoult, avocate)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Sets aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 9 November 2016, Jenkinson v Council and Others (T-602/15, EU:T:2016:660);

                  2.

                  Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union;

                  3.

                  Reserves the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 104, 3.4.2017.


title: Case T-427/18: Action brought on 10 July 2018 — Geske v EUIPO (SATISFYERMEN)

text:
               27.8.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/44

      Action brought on 10 July 2018 — Geske v EUIPO (SATISFYERMEN)
      (Case T-427/18)
      (2018/C 301/59)
      Language in which the application was lodged: German

         Parties

         Applicant: André Geske (Lübbecke, Germany) (represented by: R. Albrecht, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Mark at issue: EU figurative mark SATISFYERMEN — Application No 16 886 541

         Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 May 2018 in Case R 2603/2017-1

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred in the appeal proceedings before EUIPO.

         Pleas in law

                  —

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


title: Case T-707/16: Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2018 — Enoitalia SpA v EUIPO — La Rural Viñedos y Bodegas (ANTONIO RUBINI) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark ANTONIO RUBINI — Earlier EU figurative mark RUTINI — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

text:
               27.8.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/27

      Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2018 — Enoitalia SpA v EUIPO — La Rural Viñedos y Bodegas (ANTONIO RUBINI)
      (Case T-707/16) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark ANTONIO RUBINI - Earlier EU figurative mark RUTINI - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
      (2018/C 301/35)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Enoitalia SpA (Calmasino di Bardolino, Italy) (represented by: S. Rizzo, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Zaera Cuadrado, acting as Agent)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: La Rural Viñedos y Bodegas SA Ltda (Capital Federal, Argentina).

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 June 2016 (Case R 1085/2015-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between La Rural Viñedos y Bodegas and Enoitalia.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Enoitalia SpA to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 419, 14.11.2016.


title: Case T-448/18: Action brought on 18 July 2018 — Ryanair and Others v Commission

text:
               10.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/24

      Action brought on 18 July 2018 — Ryanair and Others v Commission
      (Case T-448/18)
      (2018/C 319/29)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicants: Ryanair DAC (Swords, Ireland), Airport Marketing Services Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) and FR Financing (Malta) Ltd (Douglas, Isle of Man) (represented by: E. Vahida and I. Metaxas-Maranghidis, lawyers, and B. Byrne, solicitor)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  annul Articles 5 and 6 of European Commission decision (EU) 2018/628 of 11 November 2016 on State aid SA.24221(2011/C) (ex 2011/NN) implemented by Austria for the Klagenfurt airport, Ryanair and other airlines using the airport (OJ 2018 L 107, p. 1), and Articles 9, 10 and 11 of the said decision insofar as they concern the applicants;

                  —

                  order the defendant to bear the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates the provisions on limitation periods of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty, (1) and Article 17 of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the TFEU, (2) and fails to state reasons, as the limitation period of ten years applied to two agreements from 2002 which were nevertheless addressed in the decision.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the principle of good administration, and the applicants’ rights of defence, as the Commission failed to allow the applicants to access the file of the investigation and to put them in a position where they could effectively make known their views.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates Article 107(1) TFEU because the Commission erroneously imputed the conclusion of the agreements with the applicants to the State.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates Article 107(1) TFEU, because the Commission has failed to establish selectivity.

                  5.

                  Fifth plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 107(1) TFEU because the Commission erroneously concluded that the arrangements between the airport and the applicants conferred an advantage on the applicants. The Commission erroneously dismissed the possibility that part of the marketing services may have been purchased for general interest purposes, erroneously refused to accept the comparator analysis proposed by the applicants, committed manifest errors of assessment and failed to state reasons in its profitability analysis, by basing its conclusions on incomplete, unreliable and inappropriate data; it also failed to attribute an appropriate value to the services provided under the marketing services agreements, wrongly dismissed the rationale behind the airport’s decision to purchase marketing services and wrongly disregarded the wider benefits of Ryanair’s operations for the airport.

                  6.

                  Sixth plea in law, alleging, on a subsidiary basis, a breach of Articles 107(1) and 108(2) TFEU in that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment and an error of law in its determination of the quantum of recoverable aid, in its instructions to the Member State implying that the adjustment of the quantum of recoverable aid is optional, and because of a contradiction between the grounds of the contested decision and its operative part.

         (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).

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


title: Case C-356/15: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 July 2018 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Social security — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Articles 11 and 12 and Article 76(6) — Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 — Article 5 — Posting of workers — Affiliation to a social security scheme — Combating fraud — A1 Certificate — Refusal of recognition by the Member State where the professional activity is carried out in the event of fraud or abuse)

text:
               10.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/2

      Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 July 2018 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
      (Case C-356/15) (1)

      ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Social security - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Articles 11 and 12 and Article 76(6) - Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 - Article 5 - Posting of workers - Affiliation to a social security scheme - Combating fraud - A1 Certificate - Refusal of recognition by the Member State where the professional activity is carried out in the event of fraud or abuse))
      (2018/C 319/02)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Martin, acting as Agent)

         Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: L. Van den Broeck and M. Jacobs, acting as Agents, and by P. Paepe, avocat)

         Intervener in support of the applicant: Ireland (represented by: E. Creedon, M. Browne, G. Hodge and A. Joyce, acting as Agents, and by C. Toland, Barrister-at-Law)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Declares that, by adopting Articles 23 and 24 of the Programme Law of 27 December 2012, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11(1), Article 12(1) and Article 76(6) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, as amended by Regulation (EU) No 465/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012, and under Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation No 883/2004;

                  2.

                  Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

                  3.

                  Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 302, 14.9.2015.


title: Case T-458/18: Action brought on 27 July 2018 — Multifit v EUIPO (real nature)

text:
               10.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/25

      Action brought on 27 July 2018 — Multifit v EUIPO (real nature)
      (Case T-458/18)
      (2018/C 319/30)
      Language in which the application was lodged: German

         Parties

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

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark ‘real nature’ — Application for registration No 16 660 425

         Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 May 2018 in Case R 2650/2017-2

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law

                  —

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


title: Case C-540/16: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — ‘Spika’ UAB, ‘Senoji Baltija’ AB, ‘Stekutis’ UAB, ‘Prekybos namai Aistra’ UAB v Žuvininkystės tarnyba prie Lietuvos Respublikos žemės ūkio ministerijos (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common fisheries policy — Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 — Article 16(6) and Article 17 — Allocation of fishing opportunities — National legislation laying down a method based on objective and transparent criteria — Inequalities in the conditions of competition between operators in the sector — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Articles 16 and 20 — Freedom to conduct a business — Equal treatment — Proportionality)

text:
               10.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/3

      Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — ‘Spika’ UAB, ‘Senoji Baltija’ AB, ‘Stekutis’ UAB, ‘Prekybos namai Aistra’ UAB v Žuvininkystės tarnyba prie Lietuvos Respublikos žemės ūkio ministerijos
      (Case C-540/16) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common fisheries policy - Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 - Article 16(6) and Article 17 - Allocation of fishing opportunities - National legislation laying down a method based on objective and transparent criteria - Inequalities in the conditions of competition between operators in the sector - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Articles 16 and 20 - Freedom to conduct a business - Equal treatment - Proportionality))
      (2018/C 319/03)
      Language of the case: Lithuanian

         Referring court

      Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellants:‘Spika’ UAB, ‘Senoji Baltija’ AB, ‘Stekutis’ UAB, ‘Prekybos namai Aistra’ UAB

         Respondent: Žuvininkystės tarnyba prie Lietuvos Respublikos žemės ūkio ministerijos

         Interveners: Lietuvos Respublikos žemės ūkio ministerija, ‘Sedija’ BUAB, V. Malinausko gamybinė-komercinė firma ‘Stilma’, ‘Starkis’ UAB, ‘Banginis’ UAB, ‘Baltijos šprotai’ UAB, ‘Monistico’ UAB, ‘Ramsun’ UAB, ‘Rikneda’ UAB, ‘Laivitė’ AB, ‘Baltijos jūra’ UAB, ‘Baltlanta’ UAB, ‘Grinvita’ UAB, ‘Strimelė’ UAB, ‘Baltijos žuvys’ BUAB

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 16(6) and Article 17 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1954/2003 and (EC) No 1224/2009 and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 2371/2002 and (EC) No 639/2004 and Council Decision 2004/585/EC, and Articles 16 and 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, by which that Member State adopts a method of allocation of fishing opportunities which, while being based on a transparent and objective allocation criterion, may create a difference in treatment between operators having fishing vessels flying that Member State’s flag, provided that that method pursues one or more general interests recognised by the European Union and respects the principle of proportionality.

         (1)  OJ C 6, 9.1.2017.


title: Case C-726/17 P: Appeal brought on 22 December 2017 by Tetra Pharm (1997) Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 23 October 2017 in Case T-441/16: Tetra Pharm (1997) v EUIPO

text:
               10.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/12

      Appeal brought on 22 December 2017 by Tetra Pharm (1997) Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 23 October 2017 in Case T-441/16: Tetra Pharm (1997) v EUIPO
      (Case C-726/17 P)
      (2018/C 319/14)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellant: Tetra Pharm (1997) Ltd (represented by: T. Grucelski, adwokat)

         Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Sebapharma GmbH & Co. KG
      By order of 11 July 2018 the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.


title: Case C-632/16: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the rechtbank van koophandel te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Dyson Ltd, Dyson BV v BSH Home Appliances NV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Retail of vacuum cleaners — Energy class label — Directive 2010/30/EU — Delegated Regulation (EU) No 665/2013 — Vacuum cleaners — Display of other symbols — Unfair commercial practices — Consumer protection — Directive 2005/29/EC — Article 7 — Failure to state the conditions under which energy efficiency is measured — Misleading omission)

text:
               17.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/8

      Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the rechtbank van koophandel te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Dyson Ltd, Dyson BV v BSH Home Appliances NV
      (Case C-632/16) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Retail of vacuum cleaners - Energy class label - Directive 2010/30/EU - Delegated Regulation (EU) No 665/2013 - Vacuum cleaners - Display of other symbols - Unfair commercial practices - Consumer protection - Directive 2005/29/EC - Article 7 - Failure to state the conditions under which energy efficiency is measured - Misleading omission))
      (2018/C 328/08)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Referring court

      Rechtbank van koophandel te Antwerpen

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: Dyson Ltd, Dyson BV

         Defendant: BSH Home Appliances NV

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Article 7 of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council must be interpreted as meaning that the act of not providing consumers with information on the testing conditions that resulted in the energy classification indicated on the label relating to the energy class of vacuum cleaners, the model of which is shown in Annex II to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 665/2013 of 3 May 2013 supplementing Directive 2010/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to energy labelling of vacuum cleaners does not constitute a ‘misleading omission’ within the meaning of that provision.

                  2.

                  Delegated Regulation No 665/2013, read in the light of Article 3(1)(b) of Directive 2010/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the indication by labelling and standard product information of the consumption of energy and other resources by energy-related products, must be interpreted as meaning that it prohibits the display, in a place other than the label relating to the energy class of vacuum cleaners, the model of which is shown in Annex II to Delegated Regulation No 665/2013, of labels or symbols recalling the information contained on that energy label, if such display is likely to mislead or confuse end-users with respect to the consumption of energy of the vacuum cleaner marketed at retail at issue during its use, which is for the referring court to verify, in view of all the relevant factors and having regard to the perception of the average end-user, who is reasonably well-informed and reasonably observant and circumspect, taking into account social, cultural and linguistic factors.

         (1)  OJ C 78, 13.3.2017.


title: Case T-450/14: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Sumitomo Electric Industries and J-Power Systems v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for power cables — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Single and continuous infringement — Proof of the infringement — Duration of participation — Public distancing — Calculation of the fine — Gravity of the infringement — Unlimited jurisdiction)

text:
               17.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/38

      Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Sumitomo Electric Industries and J-Power Systems v Commission
      (Case T-450/14) (1)

      ((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for power cables - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Single and continuous infringement - Proof of the infringement - Duration of participation - Public distancing - Calculation of the fine - Gravity of the infringement - Unlimited jurisdiction))
      (2018/C 328/52)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicants: Sumitomo Electric Industries Ltd (Osaka, Japan) and J-Power Systems Corp. (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by M. Hansen, L. Crocco, J. Ruiz Calzado and S. Völcker, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by C. Giolito, H. van Vliet and J. Norris-Usher, acting as Agents, and by M. Gray, Barrister)

         Re:

      Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 final of 2 April 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39610 — Power cables) in so far as it concerns the applicants and, in the alternative, an application for a reduction in the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants in that decision.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Sumitomo Electric Industries Ltd and J-Power Systems Corp. to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.


title: Case C-487/18: Action brought on 25 July 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Austria

text:
               17.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/29

      Action brought on 25 July 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Austria
      (Case C-487/18)
      (2018/C 328/39)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Noll-Ehlers and M. Patakia, acting as Agents)

         Defendant: Republic of Austria

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  declare that, by failing to notify the Commission of its national programme for the management of spent fuel and radioactive waste, the Republic of Austria has infringed its obligations 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 Republic of Austria to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Up to the present, the defendant has merely notified the Commission of a draft national programme. In its replies to the letter of formal notice and the reasoned opinion it explained that the national programme had still to be adopted by the Federal Government, something which had not yet occurred. Only after that adoption would notification of the national programme be possible. However, the defendant has not yet followed up on those announcements. The defendant has thus still not notified a national programme and has failed to fulfil its obligation under Article 15(4), in conjunction with Article 13(1), of the directive.

         (1)  OJ 2011 L 199, p. 48.


title: Case C-338/17: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — Virginie Marie Gabriel Guigo v ‘Garantirani vzemania na rabotnitsite i sluzhitelite’ Fund (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Protection of employees in the event of employer’s insolvency — Directive 2008/94/EC — Articles 3 and 4 — Employees’ claims borne by guarantee institutions — Limitation on the liability of guarantee institutions — Exclusion of wage claims arising over three months prior to the entry in the commercial register of the judicial decision initiating insolvency proceedings)

text:
               17.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/19

      Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — Virginie Marie Gabriel Guigo v ‘Garantirani vzemania na rabotnitsite i sluzhitelite’ Fund
      (Case C-338/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Protection of employees in the event of employer’s insolvency - Directive 2008/94/EC - Articles 3 and 4 - Employees’ claims borne by guarantee institutions - Limitation on the liability of guarantee institutions - Exclusion of wage claims arising over three months prior to the entry in the commercial register of the judicial decision initiating insolvency proceedings))
      (2018/C 328/23)
      Language of the case: Bulgarian

         Referring court

      Varhoven administrativen sad

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Virginie Marie Gabriel Guigo

         Defendant:‘Garantirani vzemania na rabotnitsite i sluzhitelite’ Fund

         Operative part of the judgment

      Directive 2008/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as Article 4(1) of the Zakon za garantiranite vzemania na rabotnitsite i sluzhitelite pri nesastoyatelnost na rabotodatelia (Law on employees’ guaranteed claims in the event of the employer’s insolvency), which does not guarantee the wage claims of employees whose employment relationship ended more than three months prior to the entry in the commercial register of the judicial decision initiating insolvency proceedings in respect of their employer.

         (1)  OJ C 269, 14.8.2017.


title: Case T-58/14: Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — Stührk Delikatessen Import v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Belgian, German, French and Dutch markets in North Sea shrimp — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Price fixing and the exchange of commercially sensitive information — Single and continuous infringement — Fines — Principle that offences and penalties must be defined by law — 2006 guidelines on the setting of fines — Mitigating factors — Substantially limited involvement — Cooperation during the administrative procedure — Maximum of 10 % of total turnover — Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Paragraph 37 of the 2006 guidelines on the setting of fines — Equal treatment — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               17.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/31

      Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — Stührk Delikatessen Import v Commission
      (Case T-58/14) (1)

      ((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Belgian, German, French and Dutch markets in North Sea shrimp - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Price fixing and the exchange of commercially sensitive information - Single and continuous infringement - Fines - Principle that offences and penalties must be defined by law - 2006 guidelines on the setting of fines - Mitigating factors - Substantially limited involvement - Cooperation during the administrative procedure - Maximum of 10 % of total turnover - Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Paragraph 37 of the 2006 guidelines on the setting of fines - Equal treatment - Obligation to state reasons))
      (2018/C 328/40)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Stührk Delikatessen Import GmbH & Co. KG (Marne, Germany) (represented by: J. Sparr, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. Leupold, F. Ronkes Agerbeek and P. Van Nuffel, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2013) 8286 final of 27 November 2013 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU (Case AT.39633 — Shrimps), in so far as it concerns the applicant, and, secondly, a reduction of the fines imposed on the applicant.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls the first paragraph of Article 2(c) of Commission Decision C(2013) 8286 final of 27 November 2013 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU (Case AT.39633 — Shrimps);

                  2.

                  Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

                  3.

                  Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs as well as half of those incurred by Stührk Delikatessen Import GmbH & Co. KG;

                  4.

                  Orders Stührk Delikatessen Import GmbH & Co. KG to bear half of its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 129, 28.4.2014.


title: Case C-679/16: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Proceedings brought by A (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Citizenship of the Union — Articles 20 and 21 TFEU — Freedom to move and reside in the Member States — Social security — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Social assistance — Sickness benefits — Services provided to people with disabilities — Obligation of a municipality in one Member State to provide one of its residents with personal assistance provided for under national legislation while that resident is in higher education in another Member State)

text:
               17.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/9

      Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Proceedings brought by A
      (Case C-679/16) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Citizenship of the Union - Articles 20 and 21 TFEU - Freedom to move and reside in the Member States - Social security - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Social assistance - Sickness benefits - Services provided to people with disabilities - Obligation of a municipality in one Member State to provide one of its residents with personal assistance provided for under national legislation while that resident is in higher education in another Member State))
      (2018/C 328/09)
      Language of the case: Finnish

         Referring court

      Korkein hallinto-oikeus

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: A

         Intervener: Espoon kaupungin sosiaali- ja terveyslautakunnan yksilöasioiden jaosto

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Article 3(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 988/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that a benefit such as the personal assistance at issue in the main proceedings, which entails, inter alia, covering the costs to which a severely disabled person’s everyday activities give rise, with the aim of enabling that person, who is not economically active, to study in higher education, does not fall within the concept of ‘sickness benefit’ within the meaning of that provision and is therefore outside the scope of Regulation No 883/2004.

                  2.

                  Articles 20 and 21 TFEU preclude the home municipality of a resident of a Member State who is severely disabled from refusing to grant that person a benefit, such as the personal assistance at issue in the main proceedings, on the ground that he is staying in another Member State in order to pursue his higher education studies there.

         (1)  OJ C 86, 20.3.2017.


title: Case T-419/14: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — The Goldman Sachs Group v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for power cables — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Single and continuous infringement — Imputability of the infringement — Presumption — Error of assessment — Presumption of innocence — Legal certainty — Principle of personal responsibility — Unlimited jurisdiction)

text:
               17.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/31

      Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — The Goldman Sachs Group v Commission
      (Case T-419/14) (1)

      ((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for power cables - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Single and continuous infringement - Imputability of the infringement - Presumption - Error of assessment - Presumption of innocence - Legal certainty - Principle of personal responsibility - Unlimited jurisdiction))
      (2018/C 328/41)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: W. Deselaers, J. Koponen and A. Mangiaracina, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Giolito, L. Malferrari, H. van Vliet and J. Norris-Usher, acting as Agents)

         Interveners in support of the defendant: Prysmian SpA (Milan, Italy) and Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi Srl (Milan) (represented by: C. Tesauro, F. Russo and L. Armati, lawyers)

         Re:

      Application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 final of 2 April 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the [EEA] Agreement (Case AT.39610 — Power cables) in so far as it concerns the applicant and, in the alternative, a reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Commission;

                  3.

                  Orders Prysmian SpA and Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi Srl to bear their own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 282, 25.8.2014.


title: Case C-5/17: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v DPAS Limited (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Exemption — Article 135(1)(d) — Transactions concerning payments and transfers — Concept — Scope — Dental payment plan by direct debit)

text:
               17.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/9

      Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v DPAS Limited
      (Case C-5/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Exemption - Article 135(1)(d) - Transactions concerning payments and transfers - Concept - Scope - Dental payment plan by direct debit))
      (2018/C 328/10)
      Language of the case: English

         Referring court

      Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber)

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

         Defendant: DPAS Limited

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 135(1)(d) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the exemption from value added tax which is provided for therein for transactions concerning payments and transfers does not apply to a supply of services, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which consists for the taxable person in requesting from the relevant financial institutions, first, that a sum of money be transferred from a patient’s bank account to that of the taxable person pursuant to a direct debit mandate and, second, that that sum, after deduction of the remuneration due to that taxable person, be transferred from the latter’s bank account to the respective bank accounts of that patient’s dentist and insurer.

         (1)  OJ C 78, 13.3.2017.


title: Case C-404/17: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Förvaltningsrätten i Malmö — Sweden) — A v Migrationsverket (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Asylum policy — Directive 2013/32/EU — Article 31(8) and Article 32(2) — Manifestly unfounded application for international protection — Concept of safe country of origin — No national rules concerning that concept — Applicant’s representations considered to be reliable but insufficient having regard to the satisfactory protection offered by the applicant’s country of origin)

text:
               17.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/20

      Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Förvaltningsrätten i Malmö — Sweden) — A v Migrationsverket
      (Case C-404/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Asylum policy - Directive 2013/32/EU - Article 31(8) and Article 32(2) - Manifestly unfounded application for international protection - Concept of safe country of origin - No national rules concerning that concept - Applicant’s representations considered to be reliable but insufficient having regard to the satisfactory protection offered by the applicant’s country of origin))
      (2018/C 328/24)
      Language of the case: Swedish

         Referring court

      Förvaltningsrätten i Malmö

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: A

         Defendant: Migrationsverket

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 31(8)(b) of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection, read in conjunction with Article 32(2) of that directive, must be interpreted as not allowing an application for international protection to be regarded as manifestly unfounded in a situation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in which, first, it is apparent from the information on the applicant’s country of origin that acceptable protection can be ensured for him in that country and, secondly, the applicant has provided insufficient information to justify the grant of international protection, where the Member State in which the application was lodged has not adopted rules implementing the concept of safe country of origin.

         (1)  OJ C 293, 4.9.2017.


title: Case T-532/18: Action brought on 10 September 2018 — Aroma Essence v EUIPO — Refan Bulgaria (Washing sponges)

text:
               29.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/37

      Action brought on 10 September 2018 — Aroma Essence v EUIPO — Refan Bulgaria (Washing sponges)
      (Case T-532/18)
      (2018/C 392/45)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Aroma Essence Ltd (Kazanlak, Bulgaria) (represented by: A. Nastev, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Refan Bulgaria OOD (Trud, Bulgaria)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

         Design at issue: European Union design No 1333223-0001

         Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 July 2018 in Case R 1197/2017-3

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision or alter it by dismissing the appeal of Refan Bulgaria OOD against the decision of the Invalidity Division of EUIPO of 10 April 2017;

                  —

                  order EUIPO and Refan Bulgaria OOD to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by Aroma Essence Ltd in the proceedings before the General court and before the Third Board of Appeal.

         Pleas in law

                  —

                  Infringement of the principle of sound administration;

                  —

                  Infringement of Articles 53(1)(2) and 60(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 in conjunction with Articles 28(1)(b)(i)(v)(vi), 30(1) and 36(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2245/2002;

                  —

                  Infringement of the principle of legal certainty, equal treatment and sound administration;

                  —

                  Infringement of Articles 59, 60(1), 65(1)(b)(c) and 75 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 and of Article 36(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2245/2002.


title: Case C-465/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 16 July 2018 — AV, BU v Comune di Bernareggio

text:
               5.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/21

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 16 July 2018 — AV, BU v Comune di Bernareggio
      (Case C-465/18)
      (2018/C 399/28)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Consiglio di Stato

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellants: AV, BU

         Respondent: Comune di Bernareggio

         Question referred

      Do the principles of freedom of establishment, non-discrimination, equal treatment, the protection of competition and freedom of movement for workers, referred to in Articles 45, 49 to 56 and 106 TFEU and in Articles 15 and 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and the requirements of proportionality and reasonableness inherent in those principles, preclude a provision of national law, such as Article 12(2) of Law No 362/1991, which, in the event of the transfer of ownership of a municipal pharmacy, confers a right of pre-emption on the employees of the pharmacy in question?


title: Judgment of the Court of 7 June 2018 in Case E-17/17 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland (Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Directive 2014/54/EU)

text:
               15.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 414/12

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      of 7 June 2018
      in Case E-17/17
      EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland

         (Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Directive 2014/54/EU)

      (2018/C 414/14)
      In Case E-17/17, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland – APPLICATION for a declaration that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at point 8 of Annex V to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2014/54/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on measures facilitating the exercise of rights conferred on workers in the context of freedom of movement for workers) as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed or, in any event, by failing to inform the EFTA Surveillance Authority thereof, the Court, composed of Páll Hreinsson, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Bernd Hammermann, Judges, gave judgment on 7 June 2018, the operative part of which is as follows:
      The Court hereby:

                  1.

                  Declares that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at point 8 of Annex V to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2014/54/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on measures facilitating the exercise of rights conferred on workers in the context of freedom of movement for workers), as adapted to the Agreement under its Protocol 1, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed.

                  2.

                  Orders Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.


title: Judgment of the Court of 14 June 2018 in Case E-12/17 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland (Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Regulation (EU) No 448/2013)

text:
               15.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 414/7

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      of 14 June 2018
      in Case E-12/17
      EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland

         (Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Regulation (EU) No 448/2013)

      (2018/C 414/09)
      In Case E-12/17, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland – APPLICATION for a declaration that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area by failing to make the Act referred to at point 31bbc of Annex IX to that Agreement (Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 448/2013 of 15 May 2013 establishing a procedure for determining the Member State of reference of a non-EU AIFM pursuant to Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council), as adapted by Protocol 1 to the Agreement, part of its legal order, the Court, composed of Páll Hreinsson, President, Per Christiansen and Bernd Hammermann (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 14 June 2018, the operative part of which is as follows:
      The Court hereby:

                  1.

                  Declares that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area by failing to make the Act referred to at point 31bbc of Annex IX to that Agreement (Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 448/2013 of 15 May 2013 establishing a procedure for determining the Member State of reference of a non-EU AIFM pursuant to Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council), as adapted to the Agreement under its Protocol 1, part of its internal legal order.

                  2.

                  Orders Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.


title: Case T-553/18: Action brought on 19 September 2018 — Rodríguez Gómez/Council

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/88

      Action brought on 19 September 2018 — Rodríguez Gómez/Council
      (Case T-553/18)
      (2018/C 427/116)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Delcy Eloina Rodríguez Gómez (Caracas, Venezuela) (represented by: F. Di Gianni and L. Giuliano, lawyers)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/901 of 25 June 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/899 of 25 June 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (2), in so far as their provisions concern the applicant; and

                  —

                  order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging that the contested acts are vitiated by a manifest error of assessment and lack of precise and consistent evidence.

                              —

                              In this regard, the applicant submits that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment concerning the applicant’s functions and roles and did not disclose a body of precise and consistent evidence in support of its claims. The applicant further claims that the Council failed to conduct a proper assessment of the evidence or, at the very least, that such assessment was manifestly erroneous.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging that the restrictive measures imposed by the contested acts constitute an unjustified and disproportionate restriction of the applicant’s fundamental right to property.

         (1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/901 of 25 June 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ L 160I, 25.6.2018, p. 12).

         (2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/899 of 25 June 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ L 160I, 25.6.2018, p. 5).


title: Case T-598/18: Action brought on 4 October 2018 — Grupo textil brownie v EUIPO — The Guide Association (BROWNIE)

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/100

      Action brought on 4 October 2018 — Grupo textil brownie v EUIPO — The Guide Association (BROWNIE)
      (Case T-598/18)
      (2018/C 427/132)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Grupo textil brownie, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: D. Pellisé Urquiza and J. C. Quero Navarro, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: The Guide Association (London, United Kingdom)

         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 word mark — Application for registration No 14 016 844

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 July 2018 in Case R 2680/2017-2

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to bear the costs.

         Plea in law

                  —

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


title: Case T-595/17: Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2018 — Demp v EUIPO (Combination of the colours yellow and grey) (EU trade mark — Application for an EU trade mark consisting of a combination of the colours yellow and grey — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/59

      Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2018 — Demp v EUIPO (Combination of the colours yellow and grey)
      (Case T-595/17) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Application for an EU trade mark consisting of a combination of the colours yellow and grey - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
      (2018/C 427/77)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Demp BV (Vianen, Netherlands) (represented by: C. Gehweiler, lawyer)

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

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 July 2017 (Case R 1624/2016-5), concerning an application for registration, as an EU trade mark, of a colour sign consisting of a combination of the colours yellow and grey.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Demp BV to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 357, 23.10.2017.


title: Case T-514/18: Action brought on 29 August 2018 — Del Valle Ruiz and Others V SRB

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/79

      Action brought on 29 August 2018 — Del Valle Ruiz and Others V SRB
      (Case T-514/18)
      (2018/C 427/106)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicants: Antonio Del Valle Ruiz (Mexico City, Mexico) and 36 others (represented by: P. Saini, QC, J. Pobjoy, Barrister and R. Boynton, Solicitor)

         Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  annul the final decision of the SRB Appeal Panel in Case 48/2017, dated 19 June 2018, insofar as the latter held that the Single Resolution Board (SRB) was entitled to rely upon (i) Article 4(1)(a), fourth indent; (ii) Article 4(2), first indent; (iii) Article 4(2), third indent; and/or (iv) Article 4(3) of Regulation No. 1049/2001 (1) (and/or the equivalent provisions under SRB Decision SRB/ES/2017/01 of 9 February 2017 on public access to SRB documents), in order to justify non-disclosure of the documents requested by the applicants in their confirmatory application dated 23 August 2017 concerning the adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español;

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging that the SRB Appeal Panel has infringed the fourth indent of Article 4(1)(a) of Regulation No. 1049/2001.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging that the Appeal Panel has infringed the first indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No. 1049/2001.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging that the Appeal Panel has infringed Article 4(3) of Regulation No. 1049/2001.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Appeal Panel has infringed the third indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No. 1049/2001.

                  5.

                  Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Appeal Panel has infringed Article 4(6) of Regulation No. 1049/2001

                  6.

                  Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Appeal Panel has infringed Article 11 of Regulation No. 1049/2001.

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