201807200162012732018/C 276/222642018CJC27620180806EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180413151621Case C-264/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Grondwettelijk Hof (Belgium) lodged on 13 April 2018 — P. M., N. G.d.M., P. V.d.S. v Ministerraad
 ---documentbreak--- C2762018EN1510120180413EN0022151162Request for a preliminary ruling from the Grondwettelijk Hof (Belgium) lodged on 13 April 2018 — P. M., N. G.d.M., P. V.d.S. v Ministerraad
   (Case C-264/18)2018/C 276/22Language of the case: Dutch
      Referring court

   Grondwettelijk Hof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: P. M., N. G.d.M., P. V.d.S.

      Defendant: Ministerraad

      Question referred

   Is Article 10(c) and (d)(i), (ii) and (v) of Directive 2014/24/EU (
         1
      ) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014‘on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC’ compatible with the principle of equal treatment, whether or not read in conjunction with the principle of subsidiarity and with Articles 49 and 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, since the services mentioned therein are excluded from the application of the procurement rules in the aforementioned Directive which nevertheless guarantee full competition and free movement in the procurement of services by public authorities?
   (
         1
      )	OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65.


201807200312013152018/C 276/441412017CJC27620180806EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180601313112Case C-141/17: Order of the President of the Court of 1 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia del País Vasco — Spain) — José Luis Cabana Carballo v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS), Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS)
 ---documentbreak--- C2762018EN3120120180601EN0044312311Order of the President of the Court of 1 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia del País Vasco — Spain) — José Luis Cabana Carballo v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS), Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS)
   (Case C-141/17) (
         1
      )2018/C 276/44Language of the case: SpanishThe President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.
   (
         1
      )	OJ C 195, 19.6.2017.


201807200402013442018/C 276/232652018CJC27620180806EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180417161611Case C-265/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 17 April 2018 — Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos v Akvilė Jarmuškienė
 ---documentbreak--- C2762018EN1610120180417EN0023161161Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 17 April 2018 — Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos v Akvilė Jarmuškienė
   (Case C-265/18)2018/C 276/23Language of the case: Lithuanian
      Referring court

   Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

      Respondent: Akvilė Jarmuškienė

      Interested third party: Vilniaus apskrities valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

      Question referred

   Must Articles 282 to 292 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (
         1
      ) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax be interpreted as meaning that in circumstances, such as those in the present case, where two goods are supplied by means of the same transaction but the annual turnover limit (the volume of activity) laid down in Article 287 of Directive 2006/112/EC (and in the corresponding provision of national legislation) is exceeded only on account of the supply of one of those goods, the taxable person (the supplier) is obliged, inter alia, to calculate and pay value added tax (1) on the entire value of the transaction (on the value of the supply of both goods) or (2) only on the part of the transaction whereby the aforesaid limit (volume of activity) is exceeded (on the value of the supply of one of the goods)?
   (
         1
      )	OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


201807200262013402018/C 276/066832016CJC27620180806EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL201806134522Case C-683/16: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Köln — Germany) — Deutscher Naturschutzring, Dachverband der deutschen Natur- und Umweltschutzverbände eV v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common Fisheries Policy — Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 — Article 11 — Conservation of marine biological resources — Protection of the environment — Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora — Exclusive competence of the European Union)
 ---documentbreak--- C2762018EN420120180613EN00064252Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Köln — Germany) — Deutscher Naturschutzring, Dachverband der deutschen Natur- und Umweltschutzverbände eV v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
   (Case C-683/16) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common Fisheries Policy — Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 — Article 11 — Conservation of marine biological resources — Protection of the environment — Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora — Exclusive competence of the European Union)’2018/C 276/06Language of the case: German
      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgericht Köln

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Deutscher Naturschutzring, Dachverband der deutschen Natur- und Umweltschutzverbände eV

      Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

      Operative part of the judgment

            1.

            Article 11 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 must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes a Member State from adopting, with respect to the waters under their sovereignty or jurisdiction, the measures which are necessary in order for it to meet its obligations under Article 6 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora and which completely prohibit, in Natura 2000 areas, commercial fishing using gear which touches the sea bed and fixed nets, since such measures affect fishing vessels flying the flag of other Member States.

            2.

            Article 11(1) of Regulation No 1380/2013 must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes the adoption, by a Member State, of measures such as those at issue in the main proceedings, with respect to the waters under its sovereignty or its jurisdiction, which are necessary in order for it to meet its obligations deriving from Directive 2004/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 104, 3.4.2017.


201807200682013012018/C 276/242692018CJC27620180806EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180419161722Case C-269/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 19 April 2018 — Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie, J, S; other parties: C, Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie
 ---documentbreak--- C2762018EN1620120180419EN0024162172Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 19 April 2018 — Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie, J, S; other parties: C, Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie
   (Case C-269/18)2018/C 276/24Language of the case: Dutch
      Referring court

   Raad van State

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie, J, S

      Other parties: C, Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

      Questions referred

            1.

            In the case where a determining authority has rejected an application for international protection as being manifestly unfounded within the meaning of Article 46(6)(a) of Directive 2013/32/EU (
                  1
               ) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (recast) and the appeal brought against that rejection before a court under national law does not have automatic suspensive effect, must Article 46(8) of that directive then be interpreted as meaning that the mere lodging of an application for interim relief results in the applicant’s stay on the territory of the Member State no longer being illegal within the meaning of Article 3 of Directive 2008/115/EC (
                  2
               ) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals and that he therefore comes within the scope of Directive 2013/33/EU (
                  3
               ) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection (recast)?

            2.

            Is it material to the answer to Question 1 that national law — having regard to the principle of non-refoulement — provides that an applicant will not be removed before a court has, on request, ruled that the outcome of the appeal against the decision refusing international protection cannot be awaited?

      (
         1
      )	OJ 2013 L 180, p. 60.
   (
         2
      )	OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98.
   (
         3
      )	OJ 2013 L 180, p. 96.


201807201112013062018/C 276/621042015TC27620180806EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180620363722Case T-104/15: Judgment of the General Court of 20 June 2018 — KV v Commission (Grant agreements concluded in the context of the Lifelong Learning Programme (2007-2013) — ‘Green Business is Smart Business’ and ‘LadybizIT: Woman entrepreneurship on the verge of ICT’ projects — Ineligible costs — Action for annulment — Lack of jurisdiction of the Commission)
 ---documentbreak--- C2762018EN3620120180620EN0062362372Judgment of the General Court of 20 June 2018 — KV v Commission
   (Case T-104/15) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Grant agreements concluded in the context of the Lifelong Learning Programme (2007-2013) — ‘Green Business is Smart Business’ and ‘LadybizIT: Woman entrepreneurship on the verge of ICT’ projects — Ineligible costs — Action for annulment — Lack of jurisdiction of the Commission)’2018/C 276/62Language of the case: English
      Parties

      Applicant: KV (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: C. Gheorghiu and K. Skelly, and subsequently by C. Gheorghiu, I. Rubene and J. King, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) (represented initially by: H. Monet and D. Homann, and subsequently by H. Monet, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking the annulment of Commission Implementing Decision C(2014) 9706 final of 16 December 2014, which dismissed as unfounded the appeal brought by the applicant against the decision of the EACEA of 23 September 2014 declaring certain staff costs to be ineligible in the light of the grant agreements concluded on 30 September 2010 and 9 September 2011 between the applicant and the EACEA for the implementation of the European projects ‘Green Business is Smart Business’ and ‘LadybizIT: Woman entrepreneurship on the Verge of ICT’.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

            1.

            Annuls Commission Implementing Decision C(2014) 9706 final of 16 December 2014;

            2.

            Dismisses the remainder of the action as inadmissible;

            3.

            Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by KV;

            4.

            Orders the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) to bear its own costs.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 155, 11.5.2015.


201807200322013642018/C 276/07392017CJC27620180806EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL201806145621Case C-39/17: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Lubrizol France SAS v Caisse nationale du Régime social des indépendants (RSI) participations extérieures (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Free movement of goods — Articles 28 and 30 TFEU — Charges having equivalent effect — Article 110 TFEU — Internal taxation — Social solidarity contribution payable by companies — Charge — Basis of assessment — Companies’ overall annual turnover — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 17 — Transfer of goods to another Member State — Value of the goods transferred — Inclusion in the overall annual turnover)
 ---documentbreak--- C2762018EN510120180614EN00075162Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Lubrizol France SAS v Caisse nationale du Régime social des indépendants (RSI) participations extérieures
   (Case C-39/17) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Free movement of goods — Articles 28 and 30 TFEU — Charges having equivalent effect — Article 110 TFEU — Internal taxation — Social solidarity contribution payable by companies — Charge — Basis of assessment — Companies’ overall annual turnover — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 17 — Transfer of goods to another Member State — Value of the goods transferred — Inclusion in the overall annual turnover)’2018/C 276/07Language of the case: French
      Referring court

   Cour de cassation

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Lubrizol France SAS

      Defendant: Caisse nationale du Régime social des indépendants (RSI) participations extérieures

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 28 and 30 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State which provides that the basis of assessment for contributions levied on the annual turnover of companies, provided that the latter reaches or exceeds a certain amount, is calculated by taking into account the representative value of the goods transferred by or on behalf of a taxable person, for the purposes of his business, from that Member State to another EU Member State, that value being taken into account from the time of that transfer, whereas, in the case where the same goods are transferred by or on behalf of the taxable person, for the purposes of his business, within the territory of the Member State concerned, their value is taken into account in that basis of assessment only at the time of their subsequent sale, on condition that:

            —

            first, the value of those goods is not taken into account in that basis of assessment for a second time at the time of their subsequent sale in that Member State;

            —

            secondly, their value is deducted from that basis of assessment when those goods are not intended to be sold in the other Member State or have been transferred back to the Member State of origin without having been sold, and

            —

            thirdly, the advantages stemming from the use of those contributions do not offset in full the burden borne by the national product marketed on the national market when it is placed on the market, this being a matter for the referring court to ascertain.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 112, 10.4.2017.


201807200532013182018/C 276/453032017CJC27620180806EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180423313113Case C-303/17: Order of the President of the Court of 23 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Headlong Limited v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Központi Irányítása
 ---documentbreak--- C2762018EN3130120180423EN0045313311Order of the President of the Court of 23 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Headlong Limited v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Központi Irányítása
   (Case C-303/17) (
         1
      )2018/C 276/45Language of the case: HungarianThe President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.
   (
         1
      )	OJ C 269, 14.8.2017.


201807200852013312018/C 276/633062015TC27620180806EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180620373821Joined Cases T-306/15 and T-484/15: Judgment of the General Court of 20 June 2018 — KV v EACEA (Arbitration clause — Grant agreements concluded in the context of the Lifelong Learning Programme (2007-2013) — NEST and ‘This is IT’ projects — Ineligible costs — Reclassification of the action)
 ---documentbreak--- C2762018EN3710120180620EN0063371382Judgment of the General Court of 20 June 2018 — KV v EACEA
   (Joined Cases T-306/15 and T-484/15) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Arbitration clause — Grant agreements concluded in the context of the Lifelong Learning Programme (2007-2013) — NEST and ‘This is IT’ projects — Ineligible costs — Reclassification of the action)’2018/C 276/63Language of the case: English
      Parties

      Applicant: KV (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

      Defendant: Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) (represented initially by: H. Monet and D. Homann, and subsequently by H. Monet, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Actions pursuant to Article 272 TFEU and seeking a declaration that, by declaring ineligible some of the staff costs incurred by the applicant in connection with the Network for Staff and Teachers in Childcare Services (‘NEST’) and Facilitating and fostering digital competence through volunteers — This is IT (‘This is IT’) projects, the EACEA did not correctly interpret and apply the contractual provisions relating to those projects.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

            1.

            Joins Cases T-306/15 and T-484/15 for the purposes of the decision closing the proceedings;

            2.

            Dismisses the actions;

            3.

            Orders KV to pay the costs.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 279, 24.8.2015.


201807200412013452018/C 276/081692017CJC27620180806EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL201806146721Case C-169/17: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Asociación Nacional de Productores de Ganado Porcino v Administración del Estado (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 34 and 35 TFEU — Free movement of goods — Quantitative restrictions — Measures having equivalent effect — Protection of pigs — Products processed or marketed in Spain — Quality standards for meat, ham, shoulder ham and loin derived from Iberian pigs — Conditions for using the ‘de cebo’ designation — Improvement of the quality of products — Directive 2008/120/EC — Scope)
 ---documentbreak--- C2762018EN610120180614EN00086172Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Asociación Nacional de Productores de Ganado Porcino v Administración del Estado
   (Case C-169/17) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 34 and 35 TFEU — Free movement of goods — Quantitative restrictions — Measures having equivalent effect — Protection of pigs — Products processed or marketed in Spain — Quality standards for meat, ham, shoulder ham and loin derived from Iberian pigs — Conditions for using the ‘de cebo’ designation — Improvement of the quality of products — Directive 2008/120/EC — Scope)’2018/C 276/08Language of the case: Spanish
      Referring court

   Tribunal Supremo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Asociación Nacional de Productores de Ganado Porcino

      Defendant: Administración del Estado

      Operative part of the judgment

            1.

            Articles 34 and 35 TFEU must be interpreted as follows:

                     —

                     Article 34 TFEU does not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that the sales designation ‘ibérico de cebo’ may be granted only to products that comply with certain conditions imposed by that legislation, since that legislation permits the importation and marketing of products from Member States other than the State that adopted the legislation at issue, under the designations they bear pursuant to the rules of the Member State of origin, even if they are similar, comparable or identical to the designations provided for in the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings.

                     —

                     Article 35 TFEU does not preclude national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings.

            2.

            Article 3(1)(a) of Council Directive 2008/120/EC of 18 December 2008 laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs, read in conjunction with Article 12 of that directive, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, providing that the use of certain sales designations for Iberian pig products processed or marketed in Spain is subject to producers complying with conditions for the rearing of Iberian pigs that are more stringent than those laid down in Article 3(1)(a) as well as a condition imposing a minimum slaughter age of 10 months.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 195, 19.6.2017.


201807200362012972018/C 276/463712017CJC27620180806EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180412313114Case C-371/17: Order of the President of the Court of 12 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Uber BV v Richard Leipold
 ---documentbreak--- C2762018EN3140120180412EN0046314311Order of the President of the Court of 12 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Uber BV v Richard Leipold
   (Case C-371/17) (
         1
      )2018/C 276/46Language of the case: GermanThe President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.
   (
         1
      )	OJ C 318, 25.9.2017.


201807200382013432018/C 276/092232017CJC27620180806EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL201806147711Case C-223/17 P: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 14 June 2018 — Lubrizol France SAS v Council of the European Union, European Commission (Appeal — Common Customs Tariff — Autonomous customs duties on certain agricultural and industrial products — Applications for tariff suspensions — Regulation (EU) No 1344/2011 — Tariff suspensions granted — Objection — Regulation (EU) No 1387/2013 — Termination of the suspensions at issue — Comparable products available in sufficient quantities on the Union market)
 ---documentbreak--- C2762018EN710120180614EN00097171Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 14 June 2018 — Lubrizol France SAS v Council of the European Union, European Commission
   (Case C-223/17 P) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Appeal — Common Customs Tariff — Autonomous customs duties on certain agricultural and industrial products — Applications for tariff suspensions — Regulation (EU) No 1344/2011 — Tariff suspensions granted — Objection — Regulation (EU) No 1387/2013 — Termination of the suspensions at issue — Comparable products available in sufficient quantities on the Union market)’2018/C 276/09Language of the case: English
      Parties

      Appellant: Lubrizol France SAS (represented by: R. MacLean, Solicitor, and by A. Bochon, lawyer)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Balta and by F. Florindo Gijón, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: A. Lewis and A. Caeiros, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

            1.

            Dismisses the appeal;

            2.

            Orders Lubrizol France SAS to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

            3.

            Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 221, 10.7.2017.


201807201152013072018/C 276/645372015TC27620180806EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180626383811Case T-537/15: Judgment of the General Court of 26 June 2018 — Deutsche Post v EUIPO — Verbis Alfa and EasyPack (InPost) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark InPost — Earlier EU figurative marks INFOPOST and ePOST and earlier national word mark POST — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — No detriment to reputation and no dilution — Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Evidence submitted for the first time before the Court)
 ---documentbreak--- C2762018EN3810120180626EN0064381381Judgment of the General Court of 26 June 2018 — Deutsche Post v EUIPO — Verbis Alfa and EasyPack (InPost)
   (Case T-537/15) (
         1
      )
   ‛(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark InPost — Earlier EU figurative marks INFOPOST and ePOST and earlier national word mark POST — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — No detriment to reputation and no dilution — Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Evidence submitted for the first time before the Court)’2018/C 276/64Language of the case: English
      Parties

      Applicant: Deutsche Post AG (Bonn, Germany) (represented initially by: M. Viefhues and T. Heitmann, and subsequently by M. Viefhues, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Rajh, G. Sakalaite-Orlovskiene and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, interveners before the General Court: Verbis Alfa sp. z o.o. (Cracow, Poland) and EasyPack sp. z o.o. (Cracow) (represented by: M. Żabińska, A. Kockläuner and O. Nilgen, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 June 2015 (Case R 546/2014-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Deutsche Post, on the one hand, and Verbis Alfa and EasyPack, on the other.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

            1.

            Dismisses the action;

            2.

            Orders Deutsche Post AG to pay the costs.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 371, 9.11.2015.


201807200222013232018/C 276/252852018CJC27620180806EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180425171821Case C-285/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 25 April 2018 — Kauno miesto savivaldybė, Kauno miesto savivaldybės administracija

 ---documentbreak--- C2762018EN1710120180425EN0025171182Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 25 April 2018 — Kauno miesto savivaldybė, Kauno miesto savivaldybės administracija

   (Case C-285/18)2018/C 276/25Language of the case: Lithuanian
      Referring court

   Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Kauno miesto savivaldybė, Kauno miesto savivaldybės administracija

      Other parties: UAB Irgita, UAB Kauno švara

      Questions referred

            1.

            Given the circumstances in the case under consideration, does the in-house transaction come within the scope of application of Directive 2004/18 (
                  1
               ) or of Directive 2014/24, (
                  2
               ) when the procedures for the conclusion of the disputed in-house transaction, inter alia, the administrative procedures, were initiated at a time when Directive 2004/18 was still in force but the contract itself was concluded on 19 May 2016, when Directive 2004/18 was no longer in force?

            2.

            Assuming that the in-house transaction comes within the scope of application of Directive 2004/18:

                     a)

                     Must Article 1(2)(a) of the Directive (but not limited thereto), taking into account the judgments of the Court of Justice in Teckal (C-107/98), Jean Auroux and Others (C-220/05), ANAV (C-410/04), and other cases, be understood and interpreted as meaning that the notion of an ‘in-house transaction’ comes within the scope of EU law, and that the content and application of that notion are not affected by the national law of Member States, inter alia, by limitations on the conclusion of such transactions, for example, the condition that public procurement contracts cannot ensure the quality, availability and continuity of the services to be provided?

                     b)

                     If the answer to the previous question is in the negative, that is to say, the notion of an ‘in-house transaction’ comes, either partially or fully, within the scope of the law of the Member States, should the abovementioned provision of Directive 2004/18 be interpreted as meaning that Member States have a discretion to establish limitations or additional conditions for the conclusion of in-house transactions (in comparison with EU law and the case-law of the Court of Justice interpreting that law) but can implement that discretion only by means of specific and clear positive legal provisions governing public procurement?

            3.

            On the assumption that the in-house transaction comes within the scope of application of Directive 2014/24:

                     a)

                     Must the provisions of Article 1(4) and Article 12 of the Directive and those of Article 36 of the Charter, either together or separately (but not limited thereto), taking into account the judgments of the Court of Justice in Teckal (C-107/98), Jean Auroux and Others (C-220/05), ANAV (C-410/04), and other cases, be understood and interpreted as meaning that the notion of an ‘in-house transaction’ comes within the scope of EU law, and that the content and application of that notion are not affected by the national law of Member States, inter alia, by limitations on the conclusion of such transactions, for example, the condition that public procurement contracts cannot ensure the quality, availability and continuity of the services to be provided?

                     b)

                     If the answer to the previous question is in the negative, that is to say, the notion of an ‘in-house transaction’, either partially or fully, comes within the scope of the law of the Member States, should the provisions of Article 12 of Directive 2014/24 be interpreted as meaning that Member States have a discretion to establish limitations or additional conditions for the conclusion of in-house transactions (in comparison with EU law and the case-law of the Court of Justice interpreting that law) but can implement that discretion only by means of specific and clear positive legal provisions governing public procurement?

            4.

            Irrespective of which directive covers the disputed in-house transaction, should the principles of the equality and non-discrimination of public procurement suppliers and transparency (Article 2 of Directive 2004/18 and Article 18 of Directive 2014/24), the general prohibition of discrimination on grounds of nationality (Article 18 TFEU), the freedom of establishment (Article 49 TFEU), the freedom to provide services (Article 56 TFEU), the possibility of granting undertakings exclusive rights (Article 106 TFEU), and the case-law of the Court of Justice (judgments in Teckal, ANAV, Sea, Undis Servizi, and in other cases) be understood and interpreted as meaning that an in-house transaction being concluded by a contracting authority and by an entity legally separate from that contracting authority, where the contracting authority exercises control over that entity similar to that which it exercises over its own departments and the activity of that entity consists mainly of an activity carried out for the benefit of the contracting authority, is in itself lawful, inter alia, does not infringe the right of other economic operators to fair competition, does not discriminate against those other operators, and no privileges are conferred on the controlled entity which concluded the in-house transaction?

      (
         1
      )	Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114).
   (
         2
      )	Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65).


201807200542013192018/C 276/104212017CJC27620180806EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL201806138811Case C-421/17: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — SZEF Krajowej Administracji Skarbowej v Polfarmex Spółka Akcyjna w Kutnie (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 2(1)(a) — Scope — Taxable transactions — Supply of goods for consideration — Transfer, by a public limited company of a building to a shareholder as the counterpart to the buy-back of its shares)
 ---documentbreak--- C2762018EN810120180613EN00108181Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — SZEF Krajowej Administracji Skarbowej v Polfarmex Spółka Akcyjna w Kutnie
   (Case C-421/17) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 2(1)(a) — Scope — Taxable transactions — Supply of goods for consideration — Transfer, by a public limited company of a building to a shareholder as the counterpart to the buy-back of its shares)’2018/C 276/10Language of the case: Polish
      Referring court

   Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: SZEF Krajowej Administracji Skarbowej

      Defendant: Polfarmex Spółka Akcyjna w Kutnie

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 2(1)(a) 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 transfer by a limited company to one of its shareholders of the ownership of immovable property, made, as is the one at issue in the main proceedings, as consideration for the buy-back, by that limited company, under a mechanism for the redemption of shares provided for in national legislation, of shares held in its share capital by that shareholder, constitutes a supply of goods for consideration subject to VAT provided that that immovable property is used in the economic activity of that limited company.
   (
         1
      )	OJ C 357, 23.10.2017.


201807200622012842018/C 276/262882018CJC27620180806EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180425191911Case C-288/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 25 April 2018 — X BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
 ---documentbreak--- C2762018EN1910120180425EN0026191191Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 25 April 2018 — X BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-288/18)2018/C 276/26Language of the case: Dutch
      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: X BV

      Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Question referred

   Must subheadings 8528 51 00 and 8528 59 40 of the Combined Nomenclature (text from 1 January 2007 to 25 October 2013) be interpreted as meaning that flat panel displays, with a screen of the liquid crystal display (LCD) technology, designed and manufactured for displaying data from an automatic data-processing machine and from other composite video signals from other sources, regardless of the other objective characteristics and properties of the specific monitor, must be classified under subheading 8528 59 40 of the CN if, because of their size, weight and functionality, they are not suitable to be viewed close up? Does it matter in that regard whether the user (the reader) of the screen and the person who processes and/or enters data in the automatic data-processing machine are one and the same?


201807200912013602018/C 276/652272016TC27620180806EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180621393911Case T-227/16: Judgment of the General Court of 21 June 2018 — Haverkamp IP v EUIPO — Sissel (Foot mat) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Registered Community design representing a foot mat — Earlier design — Grounds for invalidity — No individual character — Informed user — Degree of freedom of the designer — Proof of saturation of the state of the art — No different overall impression — Article 5 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Article 63(1) of Regulation No 6/2002)
 ---documentbreak--- C2762018EN3910120180621EN0065391391Judgment of the General Court of 21 June 2018 — Haverkamp IP v EUIPO — Sissel (Foot mat)
   (Case T-227/16) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Community design — Invalidity proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Registered Community design representing a foot mat — Earlier design — Grounds for invalidity — No individual character — Informed user — Degree of freedom of the designer — Proof of saturation of the state of the art — No different overall impression — Article 5 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Article 63(1) of Regulation No 6/2002)’2018/C 276/65Language of the case: German
      Parties

      Applicant: Haverkamp IP GmbH (Kindberg, Austria), authorised to replace Reinhard Haverkamp (represented by: A. Waldenberger, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Sissel GmbH (Bad Dürkheim, Germany)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 February 2016 (Case R 2618/2014-3) concerning invalidity proceedings between Sissel and Mr Haverkamp

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

            1.

            Dismisses the action;

            2.

            Orders Haverkamp IP GmbH to pay the costs.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 243, 4.7.2016.


201807200112012712018/C 276/114582017CJC27620180806EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL201806148922Case C-458/17 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 June 2018 — Rami Makhlouf v Council of the European Union, European Commission (Appeal — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against the Syrian Arab Republic — Measures directed against influential businessmen and women engaged in activities in Syria and against influential members of the Assad and Makhlouf families — Rights of defence — Proof that inclusion on the lists is well founded)
 ---documentbreak--- C2762018EN820120180614EN00118292Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 June 2018 — Rami Makhlouf v Council of the European Union, European Commission
   (Case C-458/17 P) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Appeal — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against the Syrian Arab Republic — Measures directed against influential businessmen and women engaged in activities in Syria and against influential members of the Assad and Makhlouf families — Rights of defence — Proof that inclusion on the lists is well founded)’2018/C 276/11Language of the case: French
      Parties

      Appellant: Rami Makhlouf (represented by: E. Ruchat, avocat)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: V. Piessevaux and S. Kyriakopoulou, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: L. Havas and R. Tricot. acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

            1.

            Dismisses the appeal;

            2.

            Orders Mr Rami Makhlouf to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union and the European Commission.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 309, 18.9.2017.


201807200342013162018/C 276/272982018CJC27620180806EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180502192022Case C-298/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Cottbus — Kammern Senftenberg (Germany) lodged on 2 May 2018 — Reiner Grafe and Jürgen Pohle v Südbrandenburger Nahverkehrs GmbH, OSL Bus GmbH
 ---documentbreak--- C2762018EN1920120180502EN0027192202Request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Cottbus — Kammern Senftenberg (Germany) lodged on 2 May 2018 — Reiner Grafe and Jürgen Pohle v Südbrandenburger Nahverkehrs GmbH, OSL Bus GmbH
   (Case C-298/18)2018/C 276/27Language of the case: German
      Referring court

   Arbeitsgericht Cottbus — Kammern Senftenberg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Reiner Grafe, Jürgen Pohle

      Defendants: Südbrandenburger Nahverkehrs GmbH, OSL Bus GmbH

      Questions referred

            1.

            Is a transfer of the operation of bus routes from one bus undertaking to another as a consequence of a tendering procedure under Directive 92/50/EEC on public service contracts (
                  1
               ) to be regarded as a transfer of a business within the meaning of Article 1(1) of Directive 77/187/EEC, (
                  2
               ) even if no significant assets, in particular no buses, have been transferred between the two undertakings?

            2.

            Does the assumption that, on the basis of a reasonable commercial decision, buses are no longer of major importance for the value of the business in the case of a temporary award of services owing to their age and more stringent technical requirements (emission values, low-floor vehicles) provide justification for the Court of Justice of the European Union to derogate from its decision of 25 January 2001 (C–172/99) to the effect that, under such circumstances, the taking over of a significant proportion of the staff can also result in Directive 77/187/EEC being applicable?

      (
         1
      )	Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1).
   (
         2
      )	Council Directive 77/187/EEC of 14 February 1977 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses (OJ 1977 L 61, p. 26).


201807200282013142018/C 276/473812017CJC27620180806EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180329323211Case C-381/17: Order of the President of the Court of 29 March 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Croatia, supported by the French Republic
 ---documentbreak--- C2762018EN3210120180329EN0047321321Order of the President of the Court of 29 March 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Croatia, supported by the French Republic
   (Case C-381/17) (
         1
      )2018/C 276/47Language of the case: CroatianThe President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.
   (
         1
      )	OJ C 283, 28.8.2017.


201807200632013282018/C 276/125892016CJC27620180806EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL201806079911Case C-589/16: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich — Austria) — Mario Alexander Filippi and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 53(2) and 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Insufficient information regarding the factual and regulatory context of the dispute in the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need for an answer to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Manifest inadmissibility)
 ---documentbreak--- C2762018EN910120180607EN00129191Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich — Austria) — Mario Alexander Filippi and Others
   (Case C-589/16) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 53(2) and 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Insufficient information regarding the factual and regulatory context of the dispute in the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need for an answer to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Manifest inadmissibility)’2018/C 276/12Language of the case: German
      Referring court

   Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Mario Alexander Filippi, Martin Manigatterer, Play For Me GmbH, ATG GmbH, Christian Vöcklinger, Gmalieva s.r.o., PBW GmbH, Felicitas GmbH, Celik KG, Christian Guzy, Martin Klein, Shopping Center Wels Einkaufszentrum GmbH, Game Zone Entertainment AG, Fortuna Advisory Kft., Finanzamt Linz, Klara Matyiko

      Other parties to the proceedings: Landespolizeidirektion Oberösterreich, Bezirkshauptmann von Eferding, Bezirkshauptmann von Ried im Innkreis, Bezirkshauptmann von Linz-Land

      Operative part of the order

   The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich (Regional Administrative Court, Upper Austria, Austria), by decision of 16 November 2016, is manifestly inadmissible.
   (
         1
      )	OJ C 38, 6.2.2017.


201807200902013332018/C 276/662282016TC27620180806EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180621394022Case T-228/16: Judgment of the General Court of 21 June 2018 — Haverkamp IP v EUIPO — Sissel (Pebble beach surface pattern) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Registered Community design representing a pebble beach surface pattern — Earlier design — Grounds for invalidity — Lack of novelty — Article 5 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)
 ---documentbreak--- C2762018EN3920120180621EN0066392402Judgment of the General Court of 21 June 2018 — Haverkamp IP v EUIPO — Sissel (Pebble beach surface pattern)
   (Case T-228/16) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Community design — Invalidity proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Registered Community design representing a pebble beach surface pattern — Earlier design — Grounds for invalidity — Lack of novelty — Article 5 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)’2018/C 276/66Language of the case: German
      Parties

      Applicant: Haverkamp IP GmbH (Kindberg, Austria), authorised to replace Reinhard Haverkamp (represented by: A. Waldenberger, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Sissel GmbH (Bad Dürkheim, Germany)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 February 2016 (Case R 2619/2014-3) concerning invalidity proceedings between Sissel and Mr Haverkamp

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

            1.

            Dismisses the action;

            2.

            Orders Haverkamp IP GmbH to pay the costs.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 243, 4.7.2016.


201807200372013542018/C 276/283022018CJC27620180806EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180504202011Case C-302/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad voor Vreemdelingenbetwistingen (Belgium) lodged on 4 May 2018 — X v Belgische Staat
 ---documentbreak--- C2762018EN2010120180504EN0028201201Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad voor Vreemdelingenbetwistingen (Belgium) lodged on 4 May 2018 — X v Belgische Staat
   (Case C-302/18)2018/C 276/28Language of the case: Dutch
      Referring court

   Raad voor Vreemdelingenbetwistingen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: X

      Defendant: Belgische Staat

      Questions referred

            1.

            Should Article 5(1)(a) of Directive 2003/109/EC, (
                  1
               ) which provides (inter alia) that, in order to acquire long-term resident status, third-country nationals must prove that they ‘have’, for themselves and for dependent family members, stable and regular resources which are sufficient to maintain himself/herself and the members of his/her family, without recourse to the social assistance system of the Member State concerned, be interpreted as meaning that it is only the third-country national’s ‘own resources’ that are concerned?

            2.

            If not, is it sufficient for those resources to be at the disposal of a third-country national, without any requirement regarding the origin of those resources being imposed, so that those resources can be made available to the third-country national also by a family member or by another third-country national?

            3.

            If the last question is answered in the affirmative, is it sufficient that a commitment of cost bearing is entered into by a third-country national whereby that third-country national undertakes to ensure that the applicant for long-term resident status ‘has, for himself/herself and for his/her dependent family members, stable, regular and sufficient resources to maintain himself/herself and the members of his/her family to avoid becoming a burden for the State’ in order to prove that the applicant has resources within the meaning of Article 5(1)(a) of Directive 2003/109/EC?

      (
         1
      )	Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents (OJ 2004 L 16, p. 44).


201807200842013102018/C 276/673252016TC27620180806EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180620404121Case T-325/16: Judgment of the General Court of 20 June 2018 — České dráhy v Commission (Competition — Administrative procedure — Decision ordering an inspection — Proportionality — Non-arbitrariness — Obligation to state reasons — Reasonable grounds — Legal certainty — Legitimate expectations — Right to respect for private life — Rights of the defence)
 ---documentbreak--- C2762018EN4010120180620EN0067401412Judgment of the General Court of 20 June 2018 — České dráhy v Commission
   (Case T-325/16) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Competition — Administrative procedure — Decision ordering an inspection — Proportionality — Non-arbitrariness — Obligation to state reasons — Reasonable grounds — Legal certainty — Legitimate expectations — Right to respect for private life — Rights of the defence)’2018/C 276/67Language of the case: Czech
      Parties

      Applicant: České dráhy a.s. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: K. Muzikář, J. Kindl and V. Kuča, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Rossi, A. Biolan, G. Meessen, P. Němečková and M. Šimerdová, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2016) 2417 final of 18 April 2016 relating to a proceeding under Article 20(4) of Regulation No 1/2003, addressed to České dráhy and all companies directly or indirectly controlled by it, ordering them to submit to an inspection (Case AT.40156 — Falcon).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

            1.

            Annuls Commission Decision C(2016) 2417 final of 18 April 2016 relating to a proceeding under Article 20(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, addressed to České dráhy and all companies directly or indirectly controlled by it, ordering them to submit to an inspection (Case AT.40156 — Falcon), in so far as it concerns routes other than the Prague-Ostrava route and conduct other than the alleged predatory pricing practices;

            2.

            Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

            3.

            Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 314, 29.8.2016.


201807200202013532018/C 276/483822017CJC27620180806EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180524323212Case C-382/17: Order of the President of the Eighth Chamber of the Court of 24 May 2018 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic
 ---documentbreak--- C2762018EN3220120180524EN0048322321Order of the President of the Eighth Chamber of the Court of 24 May 2018 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-382/17) (
         1
      )2018/C 276/48Language of the case: PortugueseThe President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.
   (
         1
      )	OJ C 277, 21.8.2017.


201807200552013252018/C 276/293142018CJC27620180806EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180508212111Case C-314/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 8 May 2018 — Openbaar Ministerie v SF
 ---documentbreak--- C2762018EN2110120180508EN0029211211Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 8 May 2018 — Openbaar Ministerie v SF
   (Case C-314/18)2018/C 276/29Language of the case: Dutch
      Referring court

   Rechtbank Amsterdam

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Openbaar Ministerie

      Defendant: SF

      Questions referred

            1.

            Must Articles 1(3) and 5(3) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA (
                  1
               ) and Articles 1(a) and (b), 3(3) and (4) and 25 of Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA (
                  2
               ) be interpreted as meaning that the issuing Member State, in its capacity as issuing State,
            in a case in which the executing Member State has made the surrender of one of its own nationals for the purpose of prosecution subject to the guarantee set out in Article 5(3) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, providing that the person concerned, after being heard, is to be returned to the executing Member State in order to serve there the custodial sentence or detention order passed against him in the issuing Member State,
            is in fact required — after the conviction involving a custodial sentence or detention order has become legally enforceable — to return the person concerned only once ‘any other proceedings in respect of the offence for which extradition was sought’ — such as confiscation proceedings — ‘are concluded’?

            2.

            Must Article 25 of Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA be interpreted as meaning that a Member State, when it has surrendered one of its own nationals on the basis of the guarantee referred to in Article 5(3) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, may, in its capacity as the executing State for the recognition and execution of the judgment delivered against that person — in derogation from Article 8(2) of Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA — consider whether the custodial sentence imposed on that person corresponds to the sentence which it would itself have imposed for the offence concerned and, if necessary, may adjust that imposed custodial sentence accordingly?

      (
         1
      )	Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States — Statements made by certain Member States on the adoption of the Framework Decision (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1).
   (
         2
      )	Council Framework Decision of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the European Union (OJ 2008 L 327, p. 27).


201807200972013492018/C 276/686192016TC27620180806EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180626414111Case T-619/16: Judgment of the General Court of 26 June 2018 — Sicignano v EUIPO — IN.PRO.DI (GiCapri ‘a giacchett’e capri’) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark GiCapri ‘a giacchett’e capri’ — Earlier EU figurative mark CAPRI — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
 ---documentbreak--- C2762018EN4110120180626EN0068411411Judgment of the General Court of 26 June 2018 — Sicignano v EUIPO — IN.PRO.DI (GiCapri ‘a giacchett’e capri’)
   (Case T-619/16) (
         1
      )
   ‛(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark GiCapri ‘a giacchett’e capri’ — Earlier EU figurative mark CAPRI — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))’2018/C 276/68Language of the case: Italian
      Parties

      Applicant: Pasquale Sicignano (Santa Maria la Carità, Italy) (represented by: A. Masetti Zannini de Concina, M. Bucarelli and G. Petrocchi, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: L. Rampini and J. Crespo Carillo, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Inghirami Produzione Distribuzione SpA (IN.PRO.DI) (Milan, Italy)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 June 2016 (Case R 806/2015-5), relating to opposition proceedings between IN.PRO.DI and Mr Sicignano.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

            1.

            Dismisses the action;

            2.

            Orders Mr Pasquale Sicignano to pay the costs.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 392, 24.10.2016.


201807200672013212018/C 276/134022017CJC27620180806EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL2018051791022Case C-402/17 P: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 17 May 2018 — JYSK sp. z o.o. v European Commission (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Refusal to grant a financial contribution from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) to the major project ‘European Shared Services Centre’ — Action for annulment — Undertaking responsible for project implementation — Conditions of admissibility — Lack of direct concern)
 ---documentbreak--- C2762018EN920120180517EN001392102Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 17 May 2018 — JYSK sp. z o.o. v European Commission
   (Case C-402/17 P) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Refusal to grant a financial contribution from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) to the major project ‘European Shared Services Centre’ — Action for annulment — Undertaking responsible for project implementation — Conditions of admissibility — Lack of direct concern)’2018/C 276/13Language of the case: English
      Parties

      Appellant: JYSK sp. z o.o. (represented by: H. Sønderby Christensen, advokat)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and B.-R. Killmann, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the order

            1.

            The appeal is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

            2.

            JYSK sp. z o.o. shall pay the costs.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 309, 18.9.2017.


201807201032013032018/C 276/696212016TC27620180806EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180620414222Case T-621/16: Judgment of the General Court of 20 June 2018 — České dráhy v Commission (Competition — Administrative procedure — Decision ordering an inspection — Inspection ordered on the basis of information obtained from a separate inspection — Proportionality — Obligation to state reasons — Right to respect for private life — Rights of defence)
 ---documentbreak--- C2762018EN4120120180620EN0069412422Judgment of the General Court of 20 June 2018 — České dráhy v Commission
   (Case T-621/16) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Competition — Administrative procedure — Decision ordering an inspection — Inspection ordered on the basis of information obtained from a separate inspection — Proportionality — Obligation to state reasons — Right to respect for private life — Rights of defence)’2018/C 276/69Language of the case: Czech
      Parties

      Applicant: České dráhy a.s. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: K. Muzikář, J. Kindl and V. Kuča, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Rossi, A. Biolan, G. Meessen, P. Němečkova and M. Šimerdová, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2016) 3993 final of 22 June 2016 requiring České dráhy, together with all entities directly or indirectly controlled by it, to submit to an inspection pursuant to Article 20(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (Case AT.40401 — Twins).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

            1.

            dismisses the action;

            2.

            orders České dráhy a.s. to pay the costs.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 392, 24.10.2016.


201807200442012982018/C 276/494152017CJC27620180806EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180426323213Case C-415/17: Order of the President of the Court of 26 April 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Croatia, supported by the French Republic
 ---documentbreak--- C2762018EN3230120180426EN0049323321Order of the President of the Court of 26 April 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Croatia, supported by the French Republic
   (Case C-415/17) (
         1
      )2018/C 276/49Language of the case: CroatianThe President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.
   (
         1
      )	OJ C 277, 21.8.2017.


201807200942012902018/C 276/707392016TC27620180806EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180626424321Case T-739/16: Judgment of the General Court of 26 June 2018 — Akant Monika i Zbigniew Harasym v EUIPO — Hunter Douglas Holding (COSIMO) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark COSIMO — Earlier EU word mark COSIFLOR — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) of Regulation 2017/1001))
 ---documentbreak--- C2762018EN4210120180626EN0070421432Judgment of the General Court of 26 June 2018 — Akant Monika i Zbigniew Harasym v EUIPO — Hunter Douglas Holding (COSIMO)
   (Case T-739/16) (
         1
      )
   ‛(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark COSIMO — Earlier EU word mark COSIFLOR — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) of Regulation 2017/1001))’2018/C 276/70Language of the case: English
      Parties

      Applicant: Akant Monika i Zbigniew Harasym sp.j. (Koszalin, Poland) (represented by: M. Krekora, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Hunter Douglas Holding GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: M. Sonntag, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 August 2016 (Case R 2364/2015-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Hunter Douglas Holding and Akant Monika i Zbigniew Harasym.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

            1.

            Dismisses the action;

            2.

            Orders Akant Monika i Zbigniew Harasym sp.j. to pay the costs.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 462, 12.12.2016.


201807200472012812018/C 276/144812017CJC27620180806EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180530101011Case C-481/17: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 30 May 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo — Bulgaria) — Nikolay Yanchev v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Veliko Tarnovo pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Aid scheme authorised by the European Commission — Investment aid in the agricultural sector — Tax exemption — Tax relief on corporation tax — Conditions — Refusal to grant individual aid under that aid scheme)
 ---documentbreak--- C2762018EN1010120180530EN0014101101Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 30 May 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo — Bulgaria) — Nikolay Yanchev v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Veliko Tarnovo pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite
   (Case C-481/17) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Aid scheme authorised by the European Commission — Investment aid in the agricultural sector — Tax exemption — Tax relief on corporation tax — Conditions — Refusal to grant individual aid under that aid scheme)’2018/C 276/14Language of the case: Bulgarian
      Referring court

   Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Nikolay Yanchev

      Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Veliko Tarnovo pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

      Operative part of the order

   Decision C(2011) 863 final of the Commission of 11 February 2011, concerning the award of State aid pursuant to Articles 107 TFEU and 108 TFEU and authorising State aid No 546/2010 of the Republic of Bulgaria for investment in agricultural holdings in the form of corporation tax relief, must be interpreted as not precluding that Member State from refusing the award of State aid under that scheme on the ground that the applicant does not meet a condition, laid down in national law, according to which no aid can be awarded to a taxpayer who has debts towards the State, notwithstanding the fact that that decision does not expressly lay down such a condition.
   (
         1
      )	OJ C 369, 30.10.2017.


201807200582012832018/C 276/504912017CJC27620180806EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180528323214Case C-491/17: Order of the President of the Third Chamber of the Court of 28 May 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom — United Kingdom) — Hoteles Piñero Canarias, S.L. v Keefe (by his litigation friend Eyton)
 ---documentbreak--- C2762018EN3240120180528EN0050324321Order of the President of the Third Chamber of the Court of 28 May 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom — United Kingdom) — Hoteles Piñero Canarias, S.L. v Keefe (by his litigation friend Eyton)
   (Case C-491/17) (
         1
      )2018/C 276/50Language of the case: EnglishThe President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.
   (
         1
      )	OJ C 347, 16.10.2017.


201807200832013092018/C 276/71712017TC27620180806EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180626434311Case T-71/17: Judgment of the General Court of 26 June 2018 — France.com v EUIPO — France (FRANCE.com) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark FRANCE.com — Earlier international figurative mark France — 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))
 ---documentbreak--- C2762018EN4310120180626EN0071431431Judgment of the General Court of 26 June 2018 — France.com v EUIPO — France (FRANCE.com)
   (Case T-71/17) (
         1
      )
   ‛(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark FRANCE.com — Earlier international figurative mark France — 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 276/71Language of the case: English
      Parties

      Applicant: France.com (Coral Gables, Florida, United States) (represented by: A. Bertrand, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: French Republic (represented by: F. Alabrune, D. Colas and D. Segoin, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 October 2016 (Case R 2452/2015-1) relating to opposition proceedings between the French Republic and France.com.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

            1.

            Dismisses the action;

            2.

            Orders France.com, Inc., to pay the costs.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 112, 10.4.2017.


201807200452012802018/C 276/151902018CJC27620180806EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180530111111Case C-190/18: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 May 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the juge de paix du premier canton de Schaerbeek — Belgium) — Société nationale des chemins de fer belges (SNCB) v Gherasim Sorin Rusu (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Insufficient information as to the factual and regulatory context of the dispute in the main proceedings and lack of grounds justifying the need for an answer to the questions referred — Manifest inadmissibility)
 ---documentbreak--- C2762018EN1110120180530EN0015111111Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 May 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the juge de paix du premier canton de Schaerbeek — Belgium) — Société nationale des chemins de fer belges (SNCB) v Gherasim Sorin Rusu
   (Case C-190/18) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Insufficient information as to the factual and regulatory context of the dispute in the main proceedings and lack of grounds justifying the need for an answer to the questions referred — Manifest inadmissibility)’2018/C 276/15Language of the case: French
      Referring court

   Juge de paix du premier canton de Schaerbeek

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Société nationale des chemins de fer belges (SNCB)

      Defendant: Gherasim Sorin Rusu

      Operative part of the order

   The request for a preliminary ruling made by the juge de paix du premier canton de Schaerbeek (Belgium), by decision of 20 February 2018, is manifestly inadmissible.
   (
         1
      )	OJ C 166, 14.5.2018.


201807200102012922018/C 276/303292018CJC27620180806EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180517212222Case C-329/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Supreme Court, Latvia) lodged on 17 May 2018 — Valsts ieņēmumu dienests v SIA Altic
 ---documentbreak--- C2762018EN2120120180517EN0030212222Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Supreme Court, Latvia) lodged on 17 May 2018 — Valsts ieņēmumu dienests v SIA Altic
   (Case C-329/18)2018/C 276/30Language of the case: Latvian
      Referring court

   Augstākā tiesa

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

      Other party to the appeal proceedings: SIA Altic

      Questions referred

            1.

            Having regard to the aim of ensuring food safety established in Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 (
                  1
               ) (which is achieved, amongst other means, by ensuring food traceability), should Article 168(a) of Directive [2006/112/EC] (
                  2
               ) be interpreted as not precluding a refusal to allow deduction of input tax where the taxable person involved in the food chain, in choosing his co-contractor, has failed to demonstrate greater diligence (beyond normal commercial practice) entailing, in essence, a requirement to carry out checks on his co-contractor, but where he has at the same time verified the quality of the foodstuffs, thus meeting the aim of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002?

            2.

            Does the requirement in Article 6 of Regulation No 852/2004 (
                  3
               ) and in Article 31 of Regulation No 882/2004 (
                  4
               ) concerning regulation of a food business, as interpreted in the light of Article 168(a) of Directive 2006/112/EC, require a party that contracts with that business to check that the business is registered, and is that check relevant for the purposes of determining whether that party knew or should have known that it was taking part in a transaction with a fictitious undertaking, having regard to the particular characteristics of the transaction in question?

      (
         1
      )	Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (OJ 2002 L 31, p. 1).
   (
         2
      )	Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).
   (
         3
      )	Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs (OJ 2004 L 139, p. 1).
   (
         4
      )	Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules (OJ 2004 L 165, p. 1).


201807200242012942018/C 276/516152017CJC27620180806EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180426333311Case C-615/17: Order of the President of the Court of 26 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Eurowings GmbH v Klaus Rövekamp, Christiane Rupp
 ---documentbreak--- C2762018EN3310120180426EN0051331331Order of the President of the Court of 26 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Eurowings GmbH v Klaus Rövekamp, Christiane Rupp
   (Case C-615/17) (
         1
      )2018/C 276/51Language of the case: GermanThe President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.
   (
         1
      )	OJ C 63, 19.2.2018.


201807200172013522018/C 276/161662018CJC27620180806EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180301111112Case C-166/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Regionale per la Campania (Italy) lodged on 1 March 2018 — Idroenergia Scrl v Agenzia delle dogane e dei Monopoli — Ufficio delle Dogane di Caserta
 ---documentbreak--- C2762018EN1120120180301EN0016112111Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Regionale per la Campania (Italy) lodged on 1 March 2018 — Idroenergia Scrl v Agenzia delle dogane e dei Monopoli — Ufficio delle Dogane di Caserta
   (Case C-166/18)2018/C 276/16Language of the case: Italian
      Referring court

   Commissione Tributaria Regionale per la Campania

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Idroenergia Scrl

      Defendant: Agenzia delle dogane e dei Monopoli — Ufficio delle Dogane di Caserta
   By order of 21 June 2018, the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) declared the request for a preliminary ruling submitted by the Commissione Tributaria Regionale per la Campania (Italy) to be manifestly inadmissible.


201807200602013272018/C 276/313352018CJC27620180806EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180523222321Case C-335/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 23 May 2018 — Criminal proceedings against AK
 ---documentbreak--- C2762018EN2210120180523EN0031221232Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 23 May 2018 — Criminal proceedings against AK
   (Case C-335/18)2018/C 276/31Language of the case: Bulgarian
      Referring court

   Sofiyski gradski sad

      Party to the main proceedings

   AK

      Questions referred

            1.

            Is Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1889/2005 (
                  1
               ) of the European Parliament and of the Council to be interpreted as meaning that it permits national legislation which, in the case of a sum of money which, having been carried across the external border of the European Union, has not been duly declared and has been seized, provides for the automatic confiscation of that sum on the sole ground of the failure to declare it, even though confiscation is not necessary for the purposes of establishing the origin of that sum?

            2.

            Is Article 9(1) of Regulation No 1889/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council to be interpreted as meaning that it permits national legislation which, for the offence referred to in the first question, provides not only for the penalty of a term of imprisonment of up to five years or a fine in the amount of one fifth of the value of the object of the criminal offence but also for mandatory confiscation of the object of the criminal offence without consideration of the origin of the undeclared sum?

      (
         1
      )	Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on controls of cash entering or leaving the Community (OJ 2005 L 309, p. 9).


201807200662013132018/C 276/172492018CJC27620180806EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180411121211Case C-249/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 11 April 2018 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën, Other party: CEVA Freight Holland B.V.
 ---documentbreak--- C2762018EN1210120180411EN0017121121Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 11 April 2018 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën, Other party: CEVA Freight Holland B.V.
   (Case C-249/18)2018/C 276/17Language of the case: Dutch
      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Other party: CEVA Freight Holland B.V.

      Questions referred

            1.

            Must Article 78 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (
                  1
               ) establishing the Community Customs Code be interpreted as meaning that a declarant, in the context of a subsequent entry in the accounts with reference to the second subparagraph of Article 147(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 (
                  2
               ) laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation No 2913/92, can choose another, lower transaction price of imported goods with a view to reducing the customs debt?

            2.

                        (a)

                        Is the determination of the time at which communication to the debtor took place, in the context of the application of Article 221(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92, a question of EU law?

                        (b)

                        If Question 2(a) is answered in the affirmative, must Article 221(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 be interpreted as meaning that the communication to the debtor referred to in that provision must have been received within the three-year period after a customs debt was incurred, or is it sufficient that that communication was sent to the debtor within that period?

      (
         1
      )	Regulation of 12 October 1992 (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1).
   (
         2
      )	Regulation of 2 July 1993 (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1).


201807200462012992018/C 276/323362018CJC27620180806EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180523232311Case C-336/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Аpelativen sad Sofia (Bulgaria) lodged on 23 May 2018 — Criminal proceedings against EP
 ---documentbreak--- C2762018EN2310120180523EN0032231231Request for a preliminary ruling from the Аpelativen sad Sofia (Bulgaria) lodged on 23 May 2018 — Criminal proceedings against EP
   (Case C-336/18)2018/C 276/32Language of the case: Bulgarian
      Referring court

   Аpelativen sad Sofia

      Party to the main proceedings

   EP

      Questions referred

            1.

            Is Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1889/2005 (
                  1
               ) of the European Parliament and of the Council, according to which an undeclared sum of money may be detained in accordance with national law, to be interpreted as meaning that it permits the automatic confiscation of that sum as a consequence of non-declaration, without any review as to the origin of the sum in question, or is it to be interpreted as meaning that it permits only the temporary seizure of that sum until such time as its origin is reviewed by the competent national authority? Is Article 251(2) of the Nakazatelen kodeks (Criminal Code) (NK) consistent with the possibility provided for in Article 4(2) of that regulation?

            2.

            Depending on the answer to the first question, is Article 9(1) of Regulation No 1889/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council to be interpreted as meaning that it does not permit national legislation which, for failure to comply with the obligation to declare laid down in Article 3 of that regulation, provides for the cumulative imposition of the penalties of a term of imprisonment or a fine and confiscation of the undeclared sum without any review as to the origin of that sum? Is the simultaneous application of Article 251(1) of the NK and Article 251(2) of the NK — that is to say, imposition of the penalty provided for in Article 251(1) of the NK and confiscation, on conviction, of the contested sum that is the object of the criminal offence under Article 251(1) of the NK, in accordance with the obligation under article 251(2) of the NK — in conformity with Article 9(1) of Regulation No 1889/2005, which, for failure to comply with the obligation to declare laid down in Article 3 of that regulation, calls for penalties which are effective, dissuasive and proportionate to the offence and to the risk to society which the latter poses?

      (
         1
      )	Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on controls of cash entering or leaving the Community (OJ 2005 L 309, p. 9).


201807200612013122018/C 276/182512018CJC27620180806EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180412121322Case C-251/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Noord-Holland (Netherlands) lodged on 12 April 2018 — Trace Sport v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane, kantoor Eindhoven
 ---documentbreak--- C2762018EN1220120180412EN0018122132Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Noord-Holland (Netherlands) lodged on 12 April 2018 — Trace Sport v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane, kantoor Eindhoven
   (Case C-251/18)2018/C 276/18Language of the case: Dutch
      Referring court

   Rechtbank Noord-Holland

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Trace Sport

      Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane, kantoor Eindhoven

      Questions referred

            1.

            Is Implementing Regulation No 501/2013 (
                  1
               ) valid in so far as it concerns the producer/exporter Kelani Cycles?

            2.

            Is Implementing Regulation No 501/2013 valid in so far as it concerns the producer/exporter Creative Cycles?

      (
         1
      )	Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 501/2013 of 29 May 2013 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 990/2011 on imports of bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of bicycles consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia, whether declared as originating in Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia or not (OJ 2013 L 153, p. 1).


201807200192012932018/C 276/333422018CJC27620180806EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180524242521Case C-342/18 P: Appeal brought on 24 May 2018 by Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo S.A. against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) made on 15 March 2018 in Case T-130/17, Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo S.A. v Commission
 ---documentbreak--- C2762018EN2410120180524EN0033241252Appeal brought on 24 May 2018 by Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo S.A. against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) made on 15 March 2018 in Case T-130/17, Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo S.A. v Commission
   (Case C-342/18 P)2018/C 276/33Language of the case: Polish
      Parties

      Appellant: Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo S.A. (represented by: M. Jeżewski, adwokat)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

            —

            set aside the order under appeal of the General Court of the European Union of 15 March 2018 dismissing as inadmissible the action brought by Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo S.A. in Case T-130/17;

            —

            give a ruling on the admissibility of the action brought by Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo S.A. in Case T-130/17 concerning an application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2016) 6950 final of 28 October 2016 on review of the exemption of the OPAL gas pipeline from the requirements on third party access and tariff regulation granted under Directive 2003/55/EC, (
                  1
               ) and declare that action admissible;

            —

            refer the case back to the General Court so that it may examine the substance of the action.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

            (1)

            The General Court misinterpreted Article 263 TFEU by taking the view that the appellant is not directly concerned by the European Commission’s decision.
            In the context of the present ground of appeal, the appellant submits that the General Court’s assessment, finding that the appellant is not directly concerned by the European Commission’s decision, is incorrect. The approach taken by the General Court is not consistent with the existing case-law indicating that a decision of the European Commission is of direct concern to persons other than the national regulatory authority which is the addressee of that decision. In particular, the appellant indicates that the German regulatory authority clearly intended to give regulatory clearance.

            (2)

            The General Court misinterpreted Article 263 TFEU by taking the view that the appellant is not individually concerned by the European Commission’s decision.
            In this context, the appellant submits that its situation enables individualisation within the meaning of the case-law concerning the admissibility of actions. The appellant, on account of its market position, is individually concerned by the contested decision. That decision also concerns the appellant because of the situation regarding ownership of the Jamał pipeline competing with the OPAL pipeline (which constitutes a continuation of the NordStream pipeline), and also has an impact on the appellant’s situation as an entity required to guarantee the security of gas supply.

            (3)

            The General Court misinterpreted the final limb of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU by finding that the contested decision is not a regulatory act.
            In the present ground of appeal, the appellant submits that the decision is a regulatory act, and that the General Court’s assessment is incorrect in that regard.

      (
         1
      )	Directive 2003/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 98/30/EC (OJ 2003 L 176, p. 57).


201807200592013202018/C 276/192572018CJC27620180806EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180413131311Case C-257/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Netherlands) lodged on 13 April 2018 — M. Güler v Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen
 ---documentbreak--- C2762018EN1310120180413EN0019131131Request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Netherlands) lodged on 13 April 2018 — M. Güler v Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen
   (Case C-257/18)2018/C 276/19Language of the case: Dutch
      Referring court

   Centrale Raad van Beroep

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: M. Güler

      Defendant: Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen

      Questions referred

            1.

            Can a Turkish national who is duly registered as belonging to the labour force of a Member State, has obtained the nationality of that Member State without renouncing his Turkish nationality and subsequently voluntarily renounced the nationality of that Member State and thus Union citizenship rely on Article 6 of Decision 3/80 (
                  1
               ) to avoid the residence requirement under the TW? (
                  2
               )

            2.

            If so, at what point must that Turkish national satisfy the requirement that he is not a Union citizen in order to derive rights from Article 6 of Decision 3/80: right from the time he leaves the host Member State or only later, when the benefit to be exported is payable in the foreign country?

            3.

            Is Article 6(1) of Decision 3/80 to be construed as meaning that a Turkish national who still held the nationality of a Member State at the time of remigration to Turkey but later voluntarily renounced that nationality, from that latter point onwards may not be denied the right to a special benefit not based on non-contributory payments designed to guarantee an income to the amount of the guaranteed minimum income in the Member State concerned, solely because he is resident in Turkey, even if, until the time of departure from the Member State concerned, he was not eligible for that special benefit since the award conditions had not then be satisfied?

      (
         1
      )	Decision No 3/80 of the Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the application of the social security schemes of the Member States of the European Communities to Turkish workers and members of their families (OJ 1983 C 110, p. 60).
   (
         2
      )	Wet van 6 november 1986, houdende verlening van toeslagen tot het relevante sociaal minimum aan uitkeringsgerechtigden op grond van de Werkloosheidswet, de Ziektewet, de Algemene Arbeidsongeschiktheidswet, de Wet op de arbeidsongeschiktheidsverzekering en de Wet arbeidsongeschiktheidsvoorziening militairen (toeslagenwet) (Law of 6 November 1986 on the award of supplements to the relevant social minimum to persons entitled to benefits under the Law on unemployment, the Law on sicknes, the general Law on incapacity for work, the Law on insurance against incapacity for work, and the Law on incapacity for work of members of the armed forces).


201807200142013512018/C 276/526452017CJC27620180806EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180323333312Case C-645/17: Order of the President of the Court of 23 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main — Germany) — Emirates Airlines — Direktion für Deutschland v Aylin Wüst, Peter Wüst
 ---documentbreak--- C2762018EN3320120180323EN0052332331Order of the President of the Court of 23 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main — Germany) — Emirates Airlines — Direktion für Deutschland v Aylin Wüst, Peter Wüst
   (Case C-645/17) (
         1
      )2018/C 276/52Language of the case: GermanThe President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.
   (
         1
      )	OJ C 129, 24.4.2017.