title: Case T-629/11: Order of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — Biogas Nord Anlagenbau v Commission (State aid — German tax legislation concerning the possibility of carrying losses forward to future tax years (Sanierungsklausel) — Decision declaring aid incompatible with the internal market — Annulment of the contested measure by the Court — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/55

      Order of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — Biogas Nord Anlagenbau v Commission
      (Case T-629/11) (1)

      ((State aid - German tax legislation concerning the possibility of carrying losses forward to future tax years (Sanierungsklausel) - Decision declaring aid incompatible with the internal market - Annulment of the contested measure by the Court - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate))
      (2019/C 44/70)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Biogas Nord Anlagenbau GmbH (Bielefeld, Germany) (represented by: C. Birkenmeyer, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially, R. Lyal, T. Maxian Rusche and M. Adam, then, R. Lyal, T. Maxian Rusche and K. Blanck, acting as Agents)

         Intervener in support of the applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: initially T. Henze, K. Petersen and R. Kanitz, then, T. Henze, R. Kanitz and K. Stranz and finally, T. Henze, R. Kanitz and S. Eisenberg, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Commission Decision 2011/527/EU of 26 January 2011 on State aid C 7/10 (ex CP 250/09 and NN 5/10) implemented by Germany — Scheme for the carry-forward of tax losses in the case of restructuring of companies in difficulty (Sanierungsklausel) (OJ 2011 L 235, p. 26).

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  There is no need to adjudicate on the action;

                  2.

                  The European Commission is ordered to pay its own costs as well as those incurred by Biogas Nord Anlagenbau GmbH;

                  3.

                  The Federal Republic of Germany is ordered to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 49, 18.2.2012.


title: Case T-576/16: Order of the General Court of 16 November 2018 — OT v Commission (Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Candidature submitted for the post of Director of the EMCDDA — Rejection of the candidature — Lis pendens — Rejection of a request for assistance — No interest in bringing proceedings — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/56

      Order of the General Court of 16 November 2018 — OT v Commission
      (Case T-576/16) (1)

      ((Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Candidature submitted for the post of Director of the EMCDDA - Rejection of the candidature - Lis pendens - Rejection of a request for assistance - No interest in bringing proceedings - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded))
      (2019/C 44/72)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: OT (represented by: D. Sobor, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Simonetti and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application on the basis of Article 270 TFEU and seeking, on the one hand, annulment (i) of ‘the decision of 26 September 2014 of [the Commission] refusing to accept the [a]pplicant’s candidature for the post of Director of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction’ (EMCDDA), (ii) of the decision of 9 April 2015, by which the Commission rejected her complaint against that decision and the request for assistance, and, (iii) of the decision of 22 October 2015, by which the Commission rejected her complaint against the rejection of her request for assistance, and, on the other hand, compensation in respect of the material and non-material harm allegedly suffered by the applicant.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The action is dismissed.

                  2.

                  OT shall pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 383, 17.10.2016 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under number F-4/16 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).


title: Case T-661/16: Order of the General Court of 19 November 2018 — Credito Fondiario SpA v SRB (Action for annulment — Economic and monetary union — Banking union — Single Resolution Mechanism of credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) — Single Resolution Fund (SRF) — Setting of the 2016 ex-ante contribution — Period for bringing an action — Out of time — Plea of illegality — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/57

      Order of the General Court of 19 November 2018 — Credito Fondiario SpA v SRB
      (Case T-661/16) (1)

      ((Action for annulment - Economic and monetary union - Banking union - Single Resolution Mechanism of credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) - Single Resolution Fund (SRF) - Setting of the 2016 ex-ante contribution - Period for bringing an action - Out of time - Plea of illegality - Manifest inadmissibility))
      (2019/C 44/73)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: Credito Fondiario SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: F. Sciaudone, S. Frazzani, A. Neri and F. Iacovone, lawyers)

         Defendant: Single Resolution Board (represented by: B. Meyring, A. Villani and M. Caccialanza, lawyers)

         Intervener in support of the applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent)

         Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, A. Steiblytė and K.-Ph. Wojcik, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application based, first, on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the SRB in its executive session of 15 April 2016 on the 2016 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2016/06) and of the decision of the SRB in its executive session of 20 May 2016 on the adjustment of the 2016 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund, supplementing the decision of the Board of 15 April 2016 (SRB/ES/SRF/2016/13), to the extent that they concern the applicant, and, second, on Article 277 TFEU.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

                  2.

                  Credito Fondiario SpA is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Single Resolution Board (SRB).

                  3.

                  The European Commission and the Italian Republic shall bear their own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 402, 31.10.2016.


title: Case T-42/17: Order of the General Court of 19 November 2018 — VR-Bank Rhein-Sieg v SRB (Action for annulment — Economic and monetary union — Banking union — Single Resolution Mechanism of credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) — Single Resolution Fund (SRF) — Setting of the 2016 ex-ante contribution — Period for bringing an action — Out of time — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/58

      Order of the General Court of 19 November 2018 — VR-Bank Rhein-Sieg v SRB
      (Case T-42/17) (1)

      ((Action for annulment - Economic and monetary union - Banking union - Single Resolution Mechanism of credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) - Single Resolution Fund (SRF) - Setting of the 2016 ex-ante contribution - Period for bringing an action - Out of time - Manifest inadmissibility))
      (2019/C 44/75)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: VR-Bank Rhein-Sieg eG (Siegburg, Germany) (represented by: H. Berger and K. Rübsamen, lawyers)

         Defendant: Single Resolution Board (represented by: A. Martin-Ehlers, S. Raes, A. Kopp and T. Van Dyck, lawyers)

         Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Steiblytė and K.-Ph. Wojcik, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment, first, of the decision of the SRB in its executive session of 15 April 2016 on the 2016 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2016/06) and, second, of the decision of the SRB in its executive session of 20 May 2016 on the adjustment of the 2016 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund, supplementing the decision of the Board of 15 April 2016 (SRB/ES/SRF/2016/13), to the extent that they concern the applicant.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

                  2.

                  VR-Bank Rhein-Sieg eG is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Single Resolution Board (SRB).

                  3.

                  The European Commission shall bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 78, 13.3.2017.


title: Case T-282/17: Order of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — UI v Council (Civil service — Official — Action for failure to act — No decision following the report on the probationary period — Article 34 of the Staff Regulations — Decision to dismiss — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/59

      Order of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — UI v Council
      (Case T-282/17) (1)

      ((Civil service - Official - Action for failure to act - No decision following the report on the probationary period - Article 34 of the Staff Regulations - Decision to dismiss - No need to adjudicate))
      (2019/C 44/76)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: UI (represented by: J. Diaz Cordova, lawyer)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: R. Meyer and M. Bauer, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application on the basis of Article 270 TFEU and seeking a declaration that the Council unlawfully failed to adopt, within the period prescribed under the Staff Regulations, a decision regarding the establishment of the applicant as an official.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

                  2.

                  The parties shall bear their own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 277, 21.8.2017.


title: Case T-293/17: Order of the General Court of 23 October 2018 — Fakro v Commission (Appeal — Abuse of a dominant position in the roof windows market — Action for a declaration of failure to act — Rejection decision terminating the failure to act — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/60

      Order of the General Court of 23 October 2018 — Fakro v Commission
      (Case T-293/17) (1)

      ((Appeal - Abuse of a dominant position in the roof windows market - Action for a declaration of failure to act - Rejection decision terminating the failure to act - No need to adjudicate))
      (2019/C 44/77)
      Language of the case: Polish

         Parties

         Applicant: Fakro sp z o.o (Nowy Sącz, Poland) (represented by: A. Radkowiak-Macuda, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: I.V. Rogalski and J. Szczodrowski, acting as Agents)

         Intervener in support of the applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

         Re:

      Application for a declaration that the Commission failed to act in that it illegally refrained from adopting a position on the complaint brought before it by the applicant on 12 July 2012 concerning abuse of a dominant position in the roof windows market.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

                  2.

                  Fakro sp. z. o. o. shall bear its own costs as well as the costs incurred by the European Commission.

                  3.

                  The Republic of Poland shall bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 249, 31.7.2017.


title: Case T-355/17: Order of the General Court of 22 November 2018 — Daico International v EUIPO — American Franchise Marketing (RoB) (EU trade mark — Cancellation proceedings — Figurative mark RoB — Declaration of invalidity — Article 60(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 68(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001) — Rule 49(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 23(3) of Regulation (EU) 2018/625) — Rule 62(3) of Regulation No 2868/95 (now Article 58(3) of Regulation 2018/625) — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/60

      Order of the General Court of 22 November 2018 — Daico International v EUIPO — American Franchise Marketing (RoB)
      (Case T-355/17) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Cancellation proceedings - Figurative mark RoB - Declaration of invalidity - Article 60(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 68(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001) - Rule 49(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 23(3) of Regulation (EU) 2018/625) - Rule 62(3) of Regulation No 2868/95 (now Article 58(3) of Regulation 2018/625) - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law))
      (2019/C 44/78)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Daico International BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: M. Kassner, lawyer)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: American Franchise Marketing Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 March 2017 (Case R 1405/2016-2), relating to cancellation proceedings between American Franchise Marketing and Daico International.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The action is dismissed.

                  2.

                  Daico International BV shall pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 239, 24.7.2017.


title: Case T-356/17: Order of the General Court of 22 November 2018 — Daico International v EUIPO — American Franchise Marketing (RoB) (EU trade mark — Cancellation proceedings — Word mark RoB — Declaration of invalidity — Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Rule 62(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 58(3) of Regulation (EU) 2018/625) — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/61

      Order of the General Court of 22 November 2018 — Daico International v EUIPO — American Franchise Marketing (RoB)
      (Case T-356/17) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Cancellation proceedings - Word mark RoB - Declaration of invalidity - Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Rule 62(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 58(3) of Regulation (EU) 2018/625) - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law))
      (2019/C 44/79)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Daico International BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: M. Kassner, lawyer)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: American Franchise Marketing Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 March 2017 (Case R 1407/2016-2), relating to cancellation proceedings between American Franchise Marketing and Daico International.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The action is dismissed.

                  2.

                  Daico International BV shall pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 239, 24.7.2017.


title: Case T-560/17: Order of the General Court of 6 November 2018 — Fortischem v Parliament and Council (Action for annulment — Environment — Regulation (EU) 2017/852 — Protection of human health and the environment — Prohibition on chlor-alkali production using mercury as an electrode — Article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU — Act not of individual concern — Inadmissibility)

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/62

      Order of the General Court of 6 November 2018 — Fortischem v Parliament and Council
      (Case T-560/17) (1)

      ((Action for annulment - Environment - Regulation (EU) 2017/852 - Protection of human health and the environment - Prohibition on chlor-alkali production using mercury as an electrode - Article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU - Act not of individual concern - Inadmissibility))
      (2019/C 44/81)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Fortischem a.s. (Nováky, Slovakia) (represented by: C. Arhold, P. Hodál and M. Staroň, lawyers)

         Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: I. McDowell, L. Darie and A. Tamás, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Moore and J. Kneale, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of letter (d) in Annex III, Part I to Regulation (EU) 2017/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2017 on mercury, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1102/2008 (OJ 2017 L 137, p. 1).

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

                  2.

                  There is no longer any need to rule on the applications for leave to intervene made by the European Commission and the Kingdom of Sweden.

                  3.

                  Fortischem a.s. is to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament, with the exception of those relating to the applications for leave to intervene.

                  4.

                  Fortischem, the Council, the Parliament, the Commission and the Kingdom of Sweden are each to bear their own costs relating to the applications for leave to intervene.

         (1)  OJ C 369, 30.10.2017.


title: Case T-658/17: Order of the General Court of 12 November 2018 — Stichting Against Child Trafficking v Commission (Action for annulment and for failure to act — Legal person informing OLAF of potentially reprehensible conduct — OLAF’s decision not to open an investigation — Measure not open to challenge — Inadmissibility — Costs — Equity — Article 135(1) of the Rules of Procedure)

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/63

      Order of the General Court of 12 November 2018 — Stichting Against Child Trafficking v Commission
      (Case T-658/17) (1)

      ((Action for annulment and for failure to act - Legal person informing OLAF of potentially reprehensible conduct - OLAF’s decision not to open an investigation - Measure not open to challenge - Inadmissibility - Costs - Equity - Article 135(1) of the Rules of Procedure))
      (2019/C 44/82)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Stichting Against Child Trafficking (Nijmegen, Netherlands) (represented by: E. Agstner, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz and C. Tritz, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Request on the basis of Articles 263 and 265 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) of 3 August 2017 not to open an administrative investigation in Case OC/2017/0451 and, second, an order requiring OLAF to open an administrative investigation and, depending on the findings of that investigation, to refer the case to the national law enforcement authorities for the purpose of criminal proceedings, and/or to the institutions of the European Union for the purpose of an administrative procedure.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

                  2.

                  Stichting Against Child Trafficking shall pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 402, 27.11.2017.


title: Case T-711/17: Order of the General Court of 14 November 2018 — Spinoit v Commission and Others (Action for annulment and damages — Measure adopted by the Head of Section of the Delegation of the European Union to Algeria in the context of a public service contract — Decision requesting the replacement of the applicant as an expert — Termination of the agreement between the contracting company and the applicant further to that decision — No capacity as a defendant — Act not open to challenge — No sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals — Causal link — Action manifestly inadmissible in part and manifestly lacking any foundation in law in part)

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/64

      Order of the General Court of 14 November 2018 — Spinoit v Commission and Others
      (Case T-711/17) (1)

      ((Action for annulment and damages - Measure adopted by the Head of Section of the Delegation of the European Union to Algeria in the context of a public service contract - Decision requesting the replacement of the applicant as an expert - Termination of the agreement between the contracting company and the applicant further to that decision - No capacity as a defendant - Act not open to challenge - No sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals - Causal link - Action manifestly inadmissible in part and manifestly lacking any foundation in law in part))
      (2019/C 44/83)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Bernard Spinoit (Charleroi, Belgium) (represented by: H. Hansen, lawyer)

         Defendants: European Commission (represented by: A. Aresu, Agent), European External Action Service (represented by: S. Marquardt and R. Spac, Agents), Delegation of the European Union to Algeria

         Re:

      Action, first, under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the letter of 3 August 2017 requesting the replacement of the applicant as an expert in the context of a public services contract and, second, under Article 268 TFEU for compensation for the harm that the applicant claims to have suffered further to that decision.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The action is dismissed.

                  2.

                  Mr Bernard Spinoit shall pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2018.


title: Case T-717/17: Order of the General Court of 6 November 2018 — Chioreanu v ERCEA (Action for annulment — ERCEA — Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (Horizon 2020) — Decision rejecting an application for revision of an evaluation of the research proposal — Administrative action before the Commission — Dismissal of the administrative action — Mistaken designation of the defendant — Application for directions to be issued — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/65

      Order of the General Court of 6 November 2018 — Chioreanu v ERCEA
      (Case T-717/17) (1)

      ((Action for annulment - ERCEA - Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (Horizon 2020) - Decision rejecting an application for revision of an evaluation of the research proposal - Administrative action before the Commission - Dismissal of the administrative action - Mistaken designation of the defendant - Application for directions to be issued - Manifest inadmissibility))
      (2019/C 44/84)
      Language of the case: Romanian

         Parties

         Applicant: Nicolae Chioreanu (Oradea, Romania) (represented by: D.-C. Rusu, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Research Council Executive Agency (represented by: F. Sgritta and M.E. Chacón Mohedano, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      First, application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of (i) the decision of ERCEA of 23 March 2017 rejecting the application for revision of an evaluation of research proposal No 741797–NIP, ERC-2016–ADG ‘New and Innovative Powertrain — NIP’ and (ii) Commission Decision C(2017) 5190 final of 27 July 2017 dismissing the administrative action brought by the applicant under Article 22(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 58/2003 of 19 December 2002 laying down the statute for executive agencies to be entrusted with certain tasks in the management of Community programmes (OJ 2003 L 11, p. 1), and, second, application requesting the General Court to require ERCEA to revise the evaluation of the research proposal referred to above.

         Operative part of the order

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Mr Nicolae Chioreanu to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2018.


title: Case T-733/17 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 23 November 2018 — GMPO v Commission (Interim relief — Medicinal products for human use — Active substance trientine tetrahydrochloride — Commission decision not to classify the medicinal product Cuprior-trientine as an orphan medicinal product — Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Lack of urgency)

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/65

      Order of the President of the General Court of 23 November 2018 — GMPO v Commission
      (Case T-733/17 R)
      ((Interim relief - Medicinal products for human use - Active substance trientine tetrahydrochloride - Commission decision not to classify the medicinal product Cuprior-trientine as an orphan medicinal product - Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Lack of urgency))
      (2019/C 44/85)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: GMP-Orphan (GMPO) (Paris, France) (represented by: M. Demetriou QC, E. Mackenzie, Barrister, L. Tsang and J. Mulryne, Solicitors)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Petersen and A. Sipos, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU for suspension of operation of Article 5 of Commission Implementing Decision C(2017) 6102 final of 5 September 2017 granting marketing authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency (OJ 2004 L 136, p. 1) for ‘Cuprior-trientine’, a medicinal product for human use.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The application for interim measures is dismissed.

                  2.

                  The costs are reserved.


title: Case T-756/17: Order of the General Court of 27 November 2018 — CMS Hasche Sigle v EUIPO (WORLD LAW GROUP) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark WORLD LAW GROUP — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/66

      Order of the General Court of 27 November 2018 — CMS Hasche Sigle v EUIPO (WORLD LAW GROUP)
      (Case T-756/17) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark WORLD LAW GROUP - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law))
      (2019/C 44/86)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: CMS Hasche Sigle Partnerschaft von Rechtsanwälten und Steuerberatern mbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: P.-C. Thielen, lawyer)

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

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 August 2017 (Case R 329/2017-5), concerning an application for registration of the word sign WORLD LAW GROUP as an EU trade mark.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The action is dismissed.

                  2.

                  CMS Hasche Sigle Partnerschaft von Rechtsanwälten und Steuerberatern mbH is ordered to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 22, 22.1.2018.


title: Case T-793/17: Order of the General Court of 14 November 2018 — Bruel v Commission and Others (Action for annulment and damages — Measure adopted by the Head of Section of the EU Delegation to Algeria in the context of a public procurement procedure for the provision of services — Decision requesting the replacement of the applicant as an expert — Termination of the agreement between the successful tendering company and the applicant following that decision — No capacity as defendant — Act not open to challenge — No sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals — Causal link — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/67

      Order of the General Court of 14 November 2018 — Bruel v Commission and Others
      (Case T-793/17) (1)

      ((Action for annulment and damages - Measure adopted by the Head of Section of the EU Delegation to Algeria in the context of a public procurement procedure for the provision of services - Decision requesting the replacement of the applicant as an expert - Termination of the agreement between the successful tendering company and the applicant following that decision - No capacity as defendant - Act not open to challenge - No sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals - Causal link - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law))
      (2019/C 44/87)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Damien Bruel (Paris, France) (represented by: H. Hansen, lawyer)

         Defendants: European Commission (represented by: A. Aresu, acting as Agent), European External Action Service (represented by: S. Marquardt and R. Spac, acting as Agents), European Union Delegation to Algeria

         Re:

      First, application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the letter of 25 September 2017 requesting the replacement of the applicant as an expert in the context of an agreement for the provision of services concluded between the successful tendering company and the applicant and, secondly, application pursuant to Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the damage which the applicant claims to have suffered as a result of that decision.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The action is dismissed.

                  2.

                  Mr Damien Bruel shall pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 52, 12.2.2018.


title: Case T-809/17: Order of the General Court of 15 November 2018 — Intercontact Budapest v CdT (Action for annulment — Public service contracts — Tendering procedure — Ranking of a tenderer in the cascade procedure — Period allowed for commencing proceedings — Delay — Inadmissible)

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/67

      Order of the General Court of 15 November 2018 — Intercontact Budapest v CdT
      (Case T-809/17) (1)

      ((Action for annulment - Public service contracts - Tendering procedure - Ranking of a tenderer in the cascade procedure - Period allowed for commencing proceedings - Delay - Inadmissible))
      (2019/C 44/88)
      Language of the case: Hungarian

         Parties

         Applicant: Intercontact Budapest Fordító és Pénzügyi Tanácsadó Kft. (Intercontact Budapest Kft.) (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: É. Subasicz, lawyer)

         Defendant: Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union (CdT) (represented by: M. Garnier and G. Bukodi, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decisions of the CdT of 10 July 2017 ranking the applicant, respectively, in second and third place in the classification of tenderers selected for the conclusion of multiple framework contracts as a result of public procurement procedures FL/GEN 16-01 and FL/GEN 16-02.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The action is dismissed.

                  2.

                  Each party shall bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 72, 26.2.2018.


title: Case T-811/17: Order of the General Court of 3 December 2018 — Classic Media v EUIPO — Pirelli Tyre (CLASSIC DRIVER) (EU Trade Mark — Opposition Proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark CLASSIC DRIVER — Earlier EU word mark DRIVER — 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) — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/68

      Order of the General Court of 3 December 2018 — Classic Media v EUIPO — Pirelli Tyre (CLASSIC DRIVER)
      (Case T-811/17) (1)

      ((EU Trade Mark - Opposition Proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark CLASSIC DRIVER - Earlier EU word mark DRIVER - 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) - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law))
      (2019/C 44/89)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Classic Media AG (Zug, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Masberg, lawyer)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: Pirelli Tyre SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: T. M. Müller and F. Togo, lawyers)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 October 2017 (Case R 59/2017-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Pirelli Tyre and Classic Media.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The action is dismissed.

                  2.

                  Classic Media AG shall pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 52, 12.2.2018.


title: Case T-45/18: Order of the General Court of 15 November 2018 — Novenco Building & Industry v EUIPO — Novenco Ventilator (Beijing) (NOVENCO) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark NOVENCO — Earlier EU word mark Novenco — Cancellation of the international registration — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/69

      Order of the General Court of 15 November 2018 — Novenco Building & Industry v EUIPO — Novenco Ventilator (Beijing) (NOVENCO)
      (Case T-45/18) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark NOVENCO - Earlier EU word mark Novenco - Cancellation of the international registration - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate))
      (2019/C 44/90)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Novenco Building & Industry A/S (Næstved, Denmark) (represented by: A. Rasmussen, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Śliwińska and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: Novenco Ventilator (Beijing) Co. Ltd (Beijing, China) (represented by: T. de Haan and P. Péters, lawyers)

         Re:

      First, an action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 November 2017 (Case R 2354/2016-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Novenco Building & Industry and Novenco Ventilator (Beijing) and, second, a cross-claim made against that same decision.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the main action or on the cross-claim.

                  2.

                  Each party shall bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 104, 19.3.2018.


title: Case T-82/18: Order of the General Court of 21 November 2018 — Husky CZ v EUIPO — Husky of Tostock (HUSKY) (EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark HUSKY — Earlier EU word and figurative marks HUSKY — Relative ground for refusal — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/69

      Order of the General Court of 21 November 2018 — Husky CZ v EUIPO — Husky of Tostock (HUSKY)
      (Case T-82/18) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark HUSKY - Earlier EU word and figurative marks HUSKY - Relative ground for refusal - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law))
      (2019/C 44/91)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Husky CZ s.r.o. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: L. Lorenc, lawyer)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Husky of Tostock Ltd (Woodbridge, United Kingdom)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 January 2018 (Case R 812/2017-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Husky of Tostock and Husky CZ.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The action is dismissed.

                  2.

                  Husky CZ s.r.o. shall pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 134, 16.4.2018.


title: Case T-275/18: Order of the General Court of 30 November 2018 — Front Polisario v Council (Action for annulment — Euro-Mediterranean Aviation Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Kingdom of Morocco, of the other part — Act concluding the agreement — Lack of applicability of the agreement to the territory of Western Sahara — Lack of standing to bring proceedings — Inadmissibility)

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/70

      Order of the General Court of 30 November 2018 — Front Polisario v Council

      (Case T-275/18) (1)

      ((Action for annulment - Euro-Mediterranean Aviation Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Kingdom of Morocco, of the other part - Act concluding the agreement - Lack of applicability of the agreement to the territory of Western Sahara - Lack of standing to bring proceedings - Inadmissibility))
      (2019/C 44/92)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Front populaire pour la libération de la Saguia el-Hamra et du Rio de oro (Front Polisario) (represented by: G. Devers, lawyer)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. de Elera-San Miguel Hurtado and R. Liudvinaviciute-Cordeiro, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Council Decision (EU) 2018/146 of 22 January 2018 on the conclusion, on behalf of the Union, of the Euro-Mediterranean Aviation Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Kingdom of Morocco, of the other part (OJ 2018 L 26, p. 4).

         Operative part of the order

      The Court hereby orders:

                  1.

                  The action is dismissed.

                  2.

                  There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene made by the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic or the European Commission.

                  3.

                  The Front populaire pour la libération de la Saguia-el-Hamra et du Rio de Oro (Front Polisario) shall pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

                  4.

                  The Front Polisario, the Council, the Commission, the Kingdom of Spain and the French Republic shall each bear their own costs relating to their applications for leave to intervene.

         (1)  OJ C 268, 30.7.2018.


title: Case T-419/18 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — Crédit agricole and Crédit agricole Corporate and Investment Bank v Commission (Interim proceedings — Competition — Euro Interbank Offered Rates (Euribor) — Euro Interest Rate Derivatives (EIRD) — Rejection of the request for confidential treatment of certain information contained in a decision establishing an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Principle of the presumption of innocence — Application for interim measures — No prima facie case)

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/73

      Order of the President of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — Crédit agricole and Crédit agricole Corporate and Investment Bank v Commission
      (Case T-419/18 R)
      ((Interim proceedings - Competition - Euro Interbank Offered Rates (Euribor) - Euro Interest Rate Derivatives (EIRD) - Rejection of the request for confidential treatment of certain information contained in a decision establishing an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Principle of the presumption of innocence - Application for interim measures - No prima facie case))
      (2019/C 44/96)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicants: Crédit agricole (Montrouge, France), Crédit agricole Corporate and Investment Bank (Montrouge) (represented by: J.-P. Tran Thiet, J. Jourdan, J.-J. Lemonnier, lawyers, and M. Powell, Solicitor)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Mongin, M. Farley and F. van Schaik, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application based on Articles 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU seeking, first, a suspension of operation of Commission Decision C(2018) 2743 final of 27 April 2018 concerning objections submitted by Crédit agricole and Crédit agricole Corporate and Investment Bank to the disclosure of information by way of publication, in accordance with Article 8 of Decision 2011/695/EU of the President of the European Commission of 13 October 2011 on the function and terms of reference of the hearing officer in certain competition proceedings (Case AT.39914 — Euro Interest Rate Derivatives (EIRD)) and, secondly, an order that the Commission refrain from publishing a version of its Decision C(2016) 8530 final of 7 December 2016 relating to proceedings under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the Agreement [on the European Economic Area (EEA)] (Case AT.39914 — Euro Interest Rate Derivatives (EIRD)) containing elements which are allegedly confidential.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The application for interim measures is dismissed.

                  2.

                  The costs are reserved.


title: Case T-420/18 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — JPMorgan Chase and Others v Commission (Application for interim measures — Competition — Euro Interbank Offered Rates (Euribor) — Euro Interest Rate Derivatives (EIRD) — Rejection of the request for confidential treatment of a decision establishing an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Principle of the presumption of innocence — Application for interim measures — No prima facie case)

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/73

      Order of the President of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — JPMorgan Chase and Others v Commission
      (Case T-420/18 R)
      ((Application for interim measures - Competition - Euro Interbank Offered Rates (Euribor) - Euro Interest Rate Derivatives (EIRD) - Rejection of the request for confidential treatment of a decision establishing an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Principle of the presumption of innocence - Application for interim measures - No prima facie case))
      (2019/C 44/97)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicants: JPMorgan Chase & Co (New York, New York, United States), JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association (Columbus, Ohio, United States), J. P. Morgan Services LLP (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Lester QC, D. Piccinin, D. Heaton, Barristers, B. Tormey, N. French, N. Frey and D. Das, Solicitors)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Farley, B. Mongin and F. van Schaik, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application pursuant to Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking, first, a stay on the operation of Commission Decision C(2018) 2745 final of 27 April 2018, on objections to the disclosure of information by their publication raised by JPMorgan Chase & Co., JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association and J.P. Morgan Services, in accordance with Article 8 of Decision 2011/695/EU of the President of the European Commission of 13 October 2011 on the function and terms of reference of the hearing officer in certain competition proceedings (Case AT.39914 — Euro Interest Rate Derivatives (EIRD)), and, second, an order requiring the Commission to refrain from publishing Commission Decision C(2016) 8530 final of 7 December 2016 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Case AT.39914 — Euro Interest Rate Derivatives (EIRD)).

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The application for interim measures is dismissed.

                  2.

                  The order of 11 July 2018, JPMorgan Chase and Others v Commission (T-420/18 R), is cancelled.

                  3.

                  The costs are reserved.


title: Case T-590/18 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — Antonakopoulos v Parliament (Application for interim measures — Civil service — Officials — Suspension of an official from duties without withholding remuneration — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Damage to reputation — No urgency)

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/74

      Order of the President of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — Antonakopoulos v Parliament
      (Case T-590/18 R)
      ((Application for interim measures - Civil service - Officials - Suspension of an official from duties without withholding remuneration - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Damage to reputation - No urgency))
      (2019/C 44/98)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Leonidas Antonakopoulos (Athens, Greece) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: J. Steele and V. Montebello-Demogeot, Agents)

         Re:

      Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU for suspension of operation of the decision of the Secretary General of the Parliament of 25 September 2018 suspending the applicant from duties for an indefinite duration without withholding remuneration.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The application for interim measures is dismissed.

                  2.

                  The costs are reserved.


title: Case T-591/18 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — ZD v Parliament (Application for interim measures — Civil service — Officials — Suspension of an official from duties without withholding remuneration — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Damage to reputation — No urgency)

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/75

      Order of the President of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — ZD v Parliament
      (Case T-591/18 R)
      ((Application for interim measures - Civil service - Officials - Suspension of an official from duties without withholding remuneration - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Damage to reputation - No urgency))
      (2019/C 44/99)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

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

         Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: J. Steele and V. Montebello-Demogeot, Agents)

         Re:

      Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU for suspension of operation of the decision of the Secretary General of the Parliament of 25 September 2018 suspending the applicant from duties for a fixed period without withholding remuneration.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The application for interim measures is dismissed.

                  2.

                  The costs are reserved.


title: Case T-603/18 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — ZE v Parliament (Interim measures — Civil service — Officials — Suspension of an official without the withholding of remuneration — Application for interim measures — Damage to reputation — No urgency)

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/75

      Order of the President of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — ZE v Parliament
      (Case T-603/18 R)
      ((Interim measures - Civil service - Officials - Suspension of an official without the withholding of remuneration - Application for interim measures - Damage to reputation - No urgency))
      (2019/C 44/100)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: ZE (represented by: P. Yatagantzidis, lawyer)

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

         Re:

      Application under Articles 287 and 279 TFEU seeking (i) the suspension of the execution of the decision of the Secretary-General of the European parliament of 25 September 2018 adopting a fixed-term suspension measure without the withholding of remuneration against the applicant; and (ii) an order that the Parliament prevent and not repeat further ‘possible leaks in the media’ involving the applicant’s name, and requesting the applicant to withdraw all personal files from the information that supervisors have, where relevant, already collected in his office.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The application for interim measures is dismissed.

                  2.

                  The costs are reserved.


title: Case T-708/18: Action brought on 28 November 2018 — ZPC Flis v EUIPO — Aldi Einkauf (FLIS Happy Moreno choco)

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/76

      Action brought on 28 November 2018 — ZPC Flis v EUIPO — Aldi Einkauf (FLIS Happy Moreno choco)
      (Case T-708/18)
      (2019/C 44/102)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: ZPC Flis sp.j. (Radziejowice, Poland) (represented by: M. Kondrat, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG (Essen, Germany)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

         Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark FLIS Happy Moreno choco — Application for registration No 15 030 786

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 September 2018 in Case R 2113/2017-1

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision and refer the case back to EUIPO for reconsideration;
                  or

                  —

                  alter the contested decision by stating that there are no relative grounds for refusal of registration of the EUTMA 015030786 ‘Flis Happy Moreno choco’ for all the goods and services in classes 30 and 35, and the trademark shall be registered;

                  —

                  award the costs in the applicant’s favour.

         Pleas in law

                  —

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

                  —

                  Infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and the principle of legal certainty.


title: Case T-713/18: Action brought on 3 December 2018 — Esim Chemicals v EUIPO — Sigma-Tau Industrie Farmaceutiche Riunite (ESIM Chemicals)

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/78

      Action brought on 3 December 2018 — Esim Chemicals v EUIPO — Sigma-Tau Industrie Farmaceutiche Riunite (ESIM Chemicals)
      (Case T-713/18)
      (2019/C 44/104)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Esim Chemicals GmbH (Linz, Austria) (represented by: I. Rungg and I. Innerhofer, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sigma-Tau Industrie Farmaceutiche Riunite (Rome, Italy)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

         Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark ESIM Chemicals — Application for registration No 14 465 331

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 October 2018 in Case R 1267/2018-5

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  resume the appeal proceedings and follow the arguments brought forward in the appeal R 1267/2018-5;

                  —

                     in eventu, permit the application to reopen the proceedings of 29 October 2018, for a substantive decision by the Fifth Board of Appeal;

                  —

                  order the defendant to bear the costs of the procedure.

         Plea in law

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 68 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.


title: Case T-716/18: Action brought on 5 December 2018 — The Logistical Approach v EUIPO — Idea Groupe (Idealogistic Compass Greatest care in getting it there)

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/79

      Action brought on 5 December 2018 — The Logistical Approach v EUIPO — Idea Groupe (Idealogistic Compass Greatest care in getting it there)
      (Case T-716/18)
      (2019/C 44/105)
      Language in which the application was lodged: French

         Parties

         Applicant: The Logistical Approach BV (Uden, Netherlands) (represented by: R. Milchior and S. Charbonnel, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Idea Groupe (Montoir de Bretagne, France)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

         Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark ‘Idealogistic Compass Greatest care in getting it there’ in black, white and blue — Application for registration No 14 567 201

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 September in Case R 2062/2017-4

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay the costs;

                  —

                  order the company Idea Groupe to pay the costs occasioned by its intervention, should it decide to intervene.

         Plea in law

                  —

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


title: Case T-719/18: Action brought on 6 December 2018 — Telemark plus v EUIPO (Telemarkfest)

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/79

      Action brought on 6 December 2018 — Telemark plus v EUIPO (Telemarkfest)
      (Case T-719/18)
      (2019/C 44/106)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Telemark plus eV (Altusried, Germany) (represented by: S. Schenk, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark Telemarkfest — Application No 16 615 114

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 September 2018 in Case R 346/2018-4

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  reformulate the contested decision as follows by deleting point No 3 of the operative part: ‘[The Board of Appeal hereby:]

                              1.

                              Annuls the contested decision in part, namely in so far as the application in respect of the services “Entertainment services; Arranging of transportation for travel tours; Cultural activities; Sporting activities; Services for providing food and drink and temporary accommodation” has been rejected;

                              2.

                              Allows the EU trade mark application also to proceed in respect of those services’;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay the costs.

         Plea in law

                  —

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


title: Case T-729/18: Action brought on 10 December 2018 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Lloyd Shoes (LLOYD)

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/80

      Action brought on 10 December 2018 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Lloyd Shoes (LLOYD)
      (Case T-729/18)
      (2019/C 44/107)
      Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

         Parties

         Applicant: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Lloyd Shoes GmbH (Sulingen, Germany)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

         Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark LLOYD — Application for registration No 10 367 721

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 September 2018 in Joined Cases R 2385/2017-1 and R 2431/2017-1

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision, inasmuch as, by dismissing in part the appeal brought by the opponent, it upholds in part the decision of the Opposition Division handed down in the opposition proceedings B 1 959 470, granting EU trade mark No 10 367 721 LLOYD (figurative) for ‘wholesaling and retailing, including via the internet and through teleshopping, in the fields of clothing, footwear, headgear’;

                  —

                  order any party or parties opposing this action to pay the costs.

         Plea in law

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


title: Case T-636/15: Order of the General Court of 8 November 2018 — Infratel Italia and Others v Commission

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/81

      Order of the General Court of 8 November 2018 — Infratel Italia and Others v Commission
      (Case T-636/15) (1)

      (2019/C 44/108)
      Language of the case: Italian
      The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 16, 18.1.2016.


title: Case T-295/17: Order of the General Court of 26 November 2018 — Danpower Baltic v Commission

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/81

      Order of the General Court of 26 November 2018 — Danpower Baltic v Commission
      (Case T-295/17) (1)

      (2019/C 44/109)
      Language of the case: English
      The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 256, 7.8.2017.


title: Case T-379/17: Order of the General Court of 26 November 2018 — Tengelmann Warenhandelsgesellschaft v EUIPO — C & C IP (T)

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/81

      Order of the General Court of 26 November 2018 — Tengelmann Warenhandelsgesellschaft v EUIPO — C & C IP (T)
      (Case T-379/17) (1)

      (2019/C 44/110)
      Language of the case: English
      The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 256, 7.8.2017.


title: Case T-401/17: Order of the General Court of 26 November 2018 — Tengelmann Warenhandelsgesellschaft v EUIPO — C & C IP (T)

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/82

      Order of the General Court of 26 November 2018 — Tengelmann Warenhandelsgesellschaft v EUIPO — C & C IP (T)
      (Case T-401/17) (1)

      (2019/C 44/111)
      Language of the case: English
      The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 269, 14.8.2017.


title: Case T-730/17: Order of the General Court of 20 November 2018 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/82

      Order of the General Court of 20 November 2018 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission
      (Case T-730/17) (1)

      (2019/C 44/112)
      Language of the case: English
      The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2018.


title: Case T-2/18: Order of the General Court of 15 November 2018 — Wirecard v EUIPO — AXA Banque (boon.)

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/82

      Order of the General Court of 15 November 2018 — Wirecard v EUIPO — AXA Banque (boon.)
      (Case T-2/18) (1)

      (2019/C 44/113)
      Language of the case: English
      The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 63, 19.2.2018.


title: Case T-222/18: Order of the General Court of 29 November 2018 — Aliança — Vinhos de Portugal v EUIPO — Lidl Stiftung (ALIANÇA VINHOS DE PORTUGAL)

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/82

      Order of the General Court of 29 November 2018 — Aliança — Vinhos de Portugal v EUIPO — Lidl Stiftung (ALIANÇA VINHOS DE PORTUGAL)
      (Case T-222/18) (1)

      (2019/C 44/114)
      Language of the case: English
      The President of the Ninth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 166, 14.5.2018.


title: Case T-252/18: Order of the General Court of 27 November 2018 — European Anglers Alliance v Council

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/83

      Order of the General Court of 27 November 2018 — European Anglers Alliance v Council
      (Case T-252/18) (1)

      (2019/C 44/115)
      Language of the case: French
      The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 240, 9.7.2018.


title: Case T-374/18: Order of the General Court of 15 November 2018 — Labiri v EESC

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/83

      Order of the General Court of 15 November 2018 — Labiri v EESC
      (Case T-374/18) (1)

      (2019/C 44/116)
      Language of the case: French
      The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 285, 13.8.2018.


title: Case C-693/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juge d’instruction du tribunal de grande instance de Paris (France) lodged on 29 October 2018 — Procureur de la République v X

text:
               4.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/5

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juge d’instruction du tribunal de grande instance de Paris (France) lodged on 29 October 2018 — Procureur de la République v X
      (Case C-693/18)
      (2019/C 82/05)
      Language of the case: French

         Referring court

      Juge d’instruction du tribunal de grande instance de Paris

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Procureur de la République

         Defendant: X

         Other parties: Parties claiming damages

         Questions referred

      1.   Interpretation of the concept of ‘design’

                  1(1):

                  What is covered by the concept of ‘element of design’ in Article 3.10 of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007, (1) which defines ‘defeat device’?

                  1(2):

                  May a program integrated in the engine control calculator or more generally acting on that calculator be considered to be an element of design within the meaning of that article?

            2.   Interpretation of the concept of ‘emission control system’

                  2(1):

                  What is covered by the concept of ‘emission control system’ in Article 3.10 of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007, which defines ‘defeat device’?

                  2(2):

                  Does this emission control system include only the technologies and strategies aimed at treating and reducing emissions (in particular of NOx) after they have been created, or does it also incorporate the different technologies and strategies that enable the initial production of emissions to be limited, such as EGR technology?

            3.   Interpretation of the concept of ‘defeat device’

                  3(1):

                  Is a device that detects any parameter connected with the conduct of the approval procedures provided for in Regulation (EC) No 715/2007, for the purposes of activating or adjusting upwards, during those procedures, the operation of any part of the emission control system, and thus obtaining approval of the vehicle, a ‘defeat device’ within the meaning of Article 3.10 of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007?

                  3(2):

                  If so, is that defeat device prohibited under Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007?

                  3(3):

                  May a device as described in Question 3(1) be characterised as a ‘defeat device’ if the upwards adjustment of the activation of the emission control system is effective, not only during the approval procedures, but also on specific occasions when the precise conditions detected for the purpose of adjusting the emission control system upwards during those approval procedures are encountered in actual traffic?

            4.   Interpretation of the exceptions provided for in Article 5

                  4(1):

                  What is covered by the three exceptions provided for in Article 5(2) in Chapter 2 of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007?

                  4(2):

                  Might the prohibition of the defeat device activating or adjusting upwards the operation of any part of the emission control system specifically during the approval procedures be disregarded for one of the three reasons listed in Article 5(2)?

                  4(3):

                  Is slowing down the aging or the clogging-up of the engine among the requirements of ‘protecting the engine against damage or accident’ or of ‘safe operation of the vehicle’ that may justify the presence of a defeat device within the meaning of Article 5(2)(a)?

         (1)  Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2007 on type approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 6) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance information (OJ 2007 L 171, p. 1).


title: Case T-137/18: Order of the General Court of 14 February 2019 — Chrome Hearts v EUIPO — Shenzhen Van St. Lonh Jewelry (Representation of a cross) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for an EU figurative mark representing a cross — Revocation of the contested decision — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               8.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/48

      Order of the General Court of 14 February 2019 — Chrome Hearts v EUIPO — Shenzhen Van St. Lonh Jewelry (Representation of a cross)
      (Case T-137/18) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for an EU figurative mark representing a cross - Revocation of the contested decision - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)
      (2019/C 131/56)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Chrome Hearts LLC (Hollywood, California, United States) (represented by: M. de Justo Bailey, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Shenzhen Van St. Lonh Jewelry Co. Ltd (Shenzhen, China)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 December 2017 (Case R 766/2017-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Chrome Hearts and Shenzhen Van St. Lonh Jewelry Co.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                     There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

                  2.

                     The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 166, 14.5.2018.


title: Joined Cases C-115/16, C-118/16, C-119/16 and C-299/16: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 February 2019 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret, Vestre Landsret — Denmark) — N Luxembourg 1 (C-115/16), X Denmark A/S (C-118/16), C Danmark I (C-119/16), Z Denmark ApS (C-299/16) v Skatteministeriet (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Common system of taxation applicable to interest and royalty payments made between associated companies of different Member States — Directive 2003/49/EC — Beneficial owner of the interest and royalties — Article 5 — Abuse of rights — Company established in a Member State and paying to an associated company established in another Member State interest all or almost all of which is then transferred outside the European Union — Subsidiary subject to an obligation to withhold tax on the interest at source)

text:
               15.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 139/5

      Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 February 2019 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret, Vestre Landsret — Denmark) — N Luxembourg 1 (C-115/16), X Denmark A/S (C-118/16), C Danmark I (C-119/16), Z Denmark ApS (C-299/16) v Skatteministeriet
      (Joined Cases C-115/16, C-118/16, C-119/16 and C-299/16) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Common system of taxation applicable to interest and royalty payments made between associated companies of different Member States - Directive 2003/49/EC - Beneficial owner of the interest and royalties - Article 5 - Abuse of rights - Company established in a Member State and paying to an associated company established in another Member State interest all or almost all of which is then transferred outside the European Union - Subsidiary subject to an obligation to withhold tax on the interest at source)
      (2019/C 139/03)
      Language of the case: Danish

         Referring courts

      Østre Landsret, Vestre Landsret

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: N Luxembourg 1 (C-115/16), X Denmark A/S (C-118/16), C Danmark I (C-119/16), Z Denmark ApS (C-299/16)

         Defendant: Skatteministeriet

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Cases C-115/16, C-118/16, C-119/16 and C-299/16 are joined for the purposes of the judgment.

                  2.

                  Article 1(1) of Council Directive 2003/49/EC of 3 June 2003 on a common system of taxation applicable to interest and royalty payments made between associated companies of different Member States, read in conjunction with Article 1(4) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that the exemption of interest payments from any taxes that is provided for by it is restricted solely to the beneficial owners of such interest, that is to say, the entities which actually benefit from that interest economically and accordingly have the power freely to determine the use to which it is put.
                  The general principle of EU law that EU law cannot be relied on for abusive or fraudulent ends must be interpreted as meaning that, where there is a fraudulent or abusive practice, the national authorities and courts are to refuse a taxpayer the exemption of interest payments from any taxes that is provided for in Article 1(1) of Directive 2003/49, even if there are no domestic or agreement-based provisions providing for such a refusal.

                  3.

                  Proof of an abusive practice requires, first, a combination of objective circumstances in which, despite formal observance of the conditions laid down by the EU rules, the purpose of those rules has not been achieved and, second, a subjective element consisting in the intention to obtain an advantage from the EU rules by artificially creating the conditions laid down for obtaining it. The presence of a certain number of indications may demonstrate that there is an abuse of rights, in so far as those indications are objective and consistent. Such indications can include, in particular, the existence of conduit companies which are without economic justification and the purely formal nature of the structure of the group of companies, the financial arrangements and the loans. The fact that the Member State where the interest arises has concluded a convention with the third State in which the company that is the beneficial owner of the interest is resident has no bearing on any finding of an abuse of rights.

                  4.

                  In order to refuse to accord a company the status of beneficial owner of interest, or to establish the existence of an abuse of rights, a national authority is not required to identify the entity or entities which it regards as being the beneficial owner(s) of that interest.

                  5.

                  Article 3(a) of Directive 2003/49 must be interpreted as meaning that a société en commandite par actions (SCA) (limited partnership with share capital) authorised as a société d’investissement en capital à risque (SICAR) (risk capital investment company) governed by Luxembourg law cannot be classified as a company of a Member State, within the meaning of that directive, capable of being entitled to the exemption provided for in Article 1(1) of the directive if, a matter which is for the referring court to ascertain, the interest received by that SICAR, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, is exempt from impôt sur les revenus des collectivités (corporate income tax) in Luxembourg.

                  6.

                  In a situation where the system, laid down by Directive 2003/49, of exemption from withholding tax on interest paid by a company resident in a Member State to a company resident in another Member State is not applicable because there is found to be fraud or abuse, within the meaning of Article 5 of that directive, application of the freedoms enshrined in the FEU Treaty cannot be relied on in order to call into question the legislation of the first Member State governing the taxation of that interest.
                  Outside such a situation, Article 63 TFEU must be interpreted as:

                              —

                              not precluding, in principle, national legislation under which a resident company which pays interest to a non-resident company is required to withhold tax on that interest at source whilst such an obligation is not owed by that resident company when the company which receives the interest is also a resident company, but as precluding national legislation that prescribes such withholding of tax at source if interest is paid by a resident company to a non-resident company whilst a resident company that receives interest from another resident company is not subject to the obligation to make an advance payment of corporation tax during the first two tax years and is therefore not required to pay corporation tax relating to that interest until a date appreciably later than the date for payment of the tax withheld at source;

                              —

                              precluding national legislation under which the resident company that owes the obligation to withhold tax at source on interest paid by it to a non-resident company is obliged, if the tax withheld is paid late, to pay default interest at a higher rate than the rate which is applicable in the event of late payment of corporation tax that is charged, inter alia, on interest received by a resident company from another resident company;

                              —

                              precluding national legislation providing that, where a resident company is subject to an obligation to withhold tax at source on the interest which it pays to a non-resident company, account is not taken of the expenditure in the form of interest, directly related to the lending at issue, which the latter company has incurred whereas, under that national legislation, such expenditure may be deducted by a resident company which receives interest from another resident company for the purpose of establishing its taxable income.

         (1)  OJ C 270, 25.7.2016.

         OJ C 279, 1.8.2016.


title: Case T-126/19: Action brought on 21 February 2019. — Krajowa Izba Gospodarcza Chłodnictwa i Klimatyzacji v Commission

text:
               29.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/54

      Action brought on 21 February 2019. — Krajowa Izba Gospodarcza Chłodnictwa i Klimatyzacji v Commission
      (Case T-126/19)
      (2019/C 148/53)
      Language of the case: Polish

         Parties

         Applicant: Krajowa Izba Gospodarcza Chłodnictwa i Klimatyzacji (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: A. Galos, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul Article 16 of Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on fluorinated greenhouse gases, on which the contested decision is founded, and as a result find that the contested decision is flawed in that regard;

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of the action, the applicant relies on 2 pleas in law.

                  1.

                  First plea in law: the applicant raises a plea under Article 277 TFEU concerning the invalidity of Article 16 of Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on fluorinated greenhouse gases and repealing Regulation (EC) No 842/2006, the contested decision being founded on that article, to the extent to which it bases the system of apportionment of quotas on reference values resulting from the historically-declared data in relation to F-gases placed on the market from 2009 to 2012, since that constitutes a discriminatory and arbitrary division of undertakings according to their historical activity on the market for gases, and it submits that the contested decision is therefore flawed in that regard.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law: the applicant alleges a breach of essential procedural requirements and the infringement of the Treaty inasmuch as inadequate reasons were given for the introduction of the mechanism for dividing undertakings active on the F-gases market on the basis of the value of the F-gases historically placed on the market from 2009 to 2012, in accordance with Article 16(1) of Regulation (EU) No 517/2014.


title: Case T-135/19: Action brought on 1 March 2019 — Corporació Catalana de Mitjans Audiovisuals v EUIPO — Dalmat (LaTV3D)

text:
               29.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/58

      Action brought on 1 March 2019 — Corporació Catalana de Mitjans Audiovisuals v EUIPO — Dalmat (LaTV3D)
      (Case T-135/19)
      (2019/C 148/56)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Corporació Catalana de Mitjans Audiovisuals, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. Erdozain López, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Stéphane Dalmat (Paris, France)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

         Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark LaTV3D — Application for registration No 15 630 833

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 December 2018 in Case R 874/2018-2

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay the costs.

         Plea in law

                  —

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


title: Case C-141/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark (Austria) lodged on 20 February 2019 — EX

text:
               3.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 187/37

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark (Austria) lodged on 20 February 2019 — EX
      (Case C-141/19)
      (2019/C 187/41)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: EX

         Respondent authority: Bezirkshauptmannschaft Hartberg-Fürstenfeld

         Interested party: Finanzpolizei

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Must Article 56 TFEU, Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services (1) and Directive 2014/67/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the enforcement of Directive 96/71/EC (2) be interpreted as precluding a national provision which, for infringements of formal obligations in connection with the cross-border deployment of labour, such as a failure to make available documents relating to pay or a failure to report to the Central Coordination Office (ZKO notifications), provides for very high fines, in particular high minimum penalties, which are imposed cumulatively in respect of each worker concerned?

                  2.

                  If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative:
                  Must Article 56 TFEU, Directive 96/71/EC and Directive 2014/67/EU be interpreted as precluding the imposition of cumulative fines for infringements of formal obligations in connection with the cross-border deployment of labour which have no absolute upper limits?

                  3.

                  Is Article 56 TFEU to be interpreted as precluding national legislation that requires a declaration of amendment to be provided to the Central Coordination Office in the event that the temporary activity in the host country is concluded prematurely and/or interrupted?

                  4.

                  If the answer to Question 3 is in the negative:
                  Is Article 56 TFEU to be interpreted as precluding national legislation which does not grant a reasonable period of time for the submission of a declaration of amendment?

                  5.

                  Are Article 56 TFEU and Article 9 of Directive 2014/67/EU to be interpreted as precluding national legislation that provides that, for the purposes of the requirement to make available certain documents, it is not sufficient subsequently to submit appropriate and relevant documents within a reasonable period of time?

                  6.

                  Are Article 56 TFEU and Article 9 of Directive 2014/67/EU to be interpreted as precluding national legislation that provides that foreign service providers are to submit documents that go beyond those specified in Article 9 of Directive 2014/67/EU, are neither relevant nor appropriate and are not clearly defined under national law (such as, for example, pay statements, payslips, pay lists, tax statements, registrations and deregistrations, health insurance, schedules of notification and allocation of surcharges, documents relating to pay grades, certificates)?

         (1)  OJ 1997 L 18, p. 1.

         (2)  Directive 2014/67/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the enforcement of Directive 96/71/EC concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services and amending Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 on administrative cooperation through the Internal Market Information System (OJ 2014 L 159, p. 11).


title: Case C-617/17: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 April 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy — Poland) — Powszechny Zakład Ubezpieczeń na Życie S.A. v Prezes Urzędu Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Competition — Article 82 EC — Abuse of a dominant position — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Article 3(1) — Application of national competition law — Decision of a national competition authority to impose one fine on the basis of national law and another on the basis of EU law — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 50 — Principle of ne bis in idem — Whether applicable)

text:
               17.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 206/7

      Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 April 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy — Poland) — Powszechny Zakład Ubezpieczeń na Życie S.A. v Prezes Urzędu Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów
      (Case C-617/17) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Competition - Article 82 EC - Abuse of a dominant position - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 3(1) - Application of national competition law - Decision of a national competition authority to impose one fine on the basis of national law and another on the basis of EU law - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 50 - Principle of ne bis in idem - Whether applicable)
      (2019/C 206/08)
      Language of the case: Polish

         Referring court

      Sąd Najwyższy

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Powszechny Zakład Ubezpieczeń na Życie S.A.

         Defendant: Prezes Urzędu Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów

         Interveners: Edward Dętka, Mirosław Krzyszczak, Zakład Projektowania i Programowania Systemów Sterowania Atempol Sp. z o.o. w Piekarach Śląskich, Ommer Polska Sp. z o.o. w Krapkowicach, Glimat Marcinek i S-ka spółka jawna w Gliwicach, Jastrzębskie Zakłady Remontowe Dźwigi Sp. z o.o. w Jastrzębiu Zdroju, Petrofer-Polska Sp. z o.o. w Nowinach, Pietrzak B.B. Beata Pietrzak, Bogdan Pietrzak Spółka jawna w Katowicach, Ewelina Baranowska, Przemysław Nikiel, Tomasz Woźniak, Spółdzielnia Kółek Rolniczych w Bielinach, Lech Marchlewski, Zakład Przetwórstwa Drobiu Marica spółka jawna J.M.E.K. Wróbel sp. jawna w Bielsku Białej, HTS Polska Sp. z o.o., Paco Cases Andrzej Paczkowski, Piotr Paczkowski spółka jawna w Puszczykowie, Bożena Kubalańca, Zbigniew Arczykowski, Przedsiębiorstwo Produkcji Handlu i Usług Unipasz Sp. z o.o. w Radzikowicach, Janusz Walocha, Marek Grzegolec

         Operative part of the judgment

      The principle of ne bis in idem enshrined in Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, proclaimed in Nice on 7 December 2000, must be interpreted as not precluding a national competition authority from fining an undertaking in a single decision for an infringement of national competition law and for an infringement of Article 82 EC. In such a situation, the national competition authority must nevertheless ensure that the fines are proportionate to the nature of the infringement.

         (1)  OJ C 104, 19.3.2018.


title: Case T-215/19: Action brought on 8 April 2019 — Glatfelter Gernsbach v Commission

text:
               17.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 206/62

      Action brought on 8 April 2019 — Glatfelter Gernsbach v Commission
      (Case T-215/19)
      (2019/C 206/60)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Glatfelter Gernsbach GmbH (Gernsbach, Germany) (represented by: N. Voß and D. Fouquet, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul Decision SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) of 28 May 2018 notified under document C(2018) 3166 (OJ 2019 L 14, p. 1) in respect of the years 2012 and 2013;

                  —

                  in the alternative, annul Decision SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) of 28 May 2018 notified under document C(2018) 3166 as against the applicant in respect of the year 2012;

                  —

                  in the further alternative, annul Decision SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) of 28 May 2018 notified under document C(2018) 3166 in so far as it orders that baseload consumers with at least 7 000 annual hours of use repay more than 20 % of the published network charges, baseload consumers with at least 7 500 annual hours of use repay more than 15 % of the published network charges, and baseload consumers with at least 8 000 annual hours of use repay more than 10 % of the published network charges;

                  —

                  in the further alternative, annul Decision SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) of 28 May 2018 notified under document C(2018) 3166 as against the applicant in so far as it orders that baseload consumers with at least 7 000 annual hours of use repay more than 20 % of the published network charges; and

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay the costs, including lawyers’ fees and travel expenses.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The application is based on the following grounds.

                  1.

                  Wrongful presumption of the existence of State aid for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU
                  In the first plea in law, it is claimed that the defendant erred in law in its examination of the contested exemption from network charges by presuming the use of State resources.
                  In addition, in the examination of the ‘selectivity’ criterion, the reference system was incorrectly and incompletely identified.
                  It is further claimed that, because of the incomplete identification of the reference system, the defendant failed to comply with its obligation to state reasons under the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU.

                  2.

                  Infringement of the principle of equal treatment
                  In the second plea in law, it is alleged that the defendant’s decision provided for the obligation to make additional payments only for baseload consumers who were fully exempted from network charges in the years 2012 and 2013. Those baseload consumers were therefore unequally treated and unfairly disadvantaged vis-à-vis baseload consumers who, over the same period, enjoyed flat-rate network charge reductions and for whom there were no obligations to make additional payments.
                  In that respect, it is further claimed that the defendant, with regard to the unequal treatment, failed to comply with its obligation to state reasons under the second paragraph of Article 263 TFEU and Article 42(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Furthermore, the unequal treatment infringed the principle of non-discrimination under Article 32(1) of Directive 2009/72/EC. (1)

                  3.

                  Infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations
                  In the third plea in law, it is claimed that, in view of the particular circumstances, the applicant could expect to be allowed to retain the special network charges granted.

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