title: Case T-389/19: Action brought on 27 June 2019 — Coppo Gavazzi v Parliament

text:
               12.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 270/48

      Action brought on 27 June 2019 — Coppo Gavazzi v Parliament
      (Case T-389/19)
      (2019/C 270/50)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: Maria Teresa Coppo Gavazzi (Milan, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Parliament

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  declare non existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament redetermined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation;

                  —

                  order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount;

                  —

                  order the European Parliament to pay the costs of the legal proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The present action is directed against the act by which the European Parliament redetermined the rights to a retirement pension of the applicant following the entry into force on 1 January 2019 of Resolution No 14/18 of the Office of the President of the Italian Chamber of Deputies and the recovery of the amount paid, paid on the basis of the earlier determination.
      In support of the action, the applicant raises four pleas in law.

                  1.

                  By the first plea in law, the applicant claims incompetence on the part of the author of the act, infringement of essential procedural requirements and the consequent infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

                              —

                              The applicant claims in that regard that the communication of the European Parliament is unlawful, since it is vitiated by serious and clear omissions, of a principally procedural nature, and, in particular, the decision was adopted by the Directorate-General for Finance and not by the Bureau of the European Parliament in accordance with Article 11ao(6) and Article 25(3) of the European Parliament’s Rules of Procedure. The communication did not contain any justification for its adoption or for the automatic application of the Italian resolution.

                  2.

                  By the second plea in law, the applicant claims that there is no legal basis for the contested act and that there was an error of law in the interpretation of Article 75 of the Implementing measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament

                              —

                              The applicant claims in that regard that the contested act erroneously refers to Annex II to the Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament and Article 75 of the Implementing measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament. The pension scheme provided for by those rules expired on 14 July 2009, with the entry into force of the Statute for Members of the European Parliament. Article 75 of the Statute, which refers to Annex III to the Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament, does not authorise the European Parliament to adopt measures such as that contested.

                  3.

                  By the third plea in law, the applicant claims that the communication clearly infringes the statutory reservation of powers established in Article 75(2) of the Statute, which refers expressly to the conditions laid down by national law, thereby rendering internal resolutions of the Chamber of Deputies of a Member State irrelevant.

                              —

                              The applicant claims in this regard that the amendments referred to in Resolution No 14/2018 of the Office of the President of the Italian Chamber of Deputies were not adopted by means of a national law, but by a mere decision of the Office of the President of the Italian Chamber of Deputies.

                  4.

                  By the fourth plea in law, the applicant alleges clear infringement of the general principles of EU law, such as the principles of legal certainty, legitimate expectations, protection of acquired rights and the principle of equality.

                              —

                              The applicant claims in that regard that the contested resolution seriously undermines the confidence of former Members in the inalienability of their previously acquired rights, and the expectations arising on the basis of the legal framework in force at the time of their mandate. In addition, the considerable reduction in the emoluments of former parliamentarians on the basis of the earlier rules is not supported by any appropriate legal justification or overriding requirement as stated in the case-law of the Court of Justice and of the European Court of Human Rights.


title: Case C-573/17: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Execution of the European arrest warrant issued against Daniel Adam Popławski (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decisions — Lack of direct effect — Primacy of EU law — Consequences — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Article 4(6) — Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA — Article 28(2) — Declaration by a Member State allowing it to continue to apply existing legal instruments on the transfer of sentenced persons applicable before 5 December 2011 — Late declaration — Consequences)

text:
               19.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 280/2

      Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Execution of the European arrest warrant issued against Daniel Adam Popławski
      (Case C-573/17) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - European arrest warrant - Framework Decisions - Lack of direct effect - Primacy of EU law - Consequences - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - Article 4(6) - Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA - Article 28(2) - Declaration by a Member State allowing it to continue to apply existing legal instruments on the transfer of sentenced persons applicable before 5 December 2011 - Late declaration - Consequences)
      (2019/C 280/02)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Referring court

      Rechtbank Amsterdam

         Party to the main proceedings

      Daniel Adam Popławski

         Other party: Openbaar Ministerie

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Article 28(2) of Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the European Union must be interpreted as meaning that a declaration made pursuant to that provision by a Member State, after that framework decision was adopted, is not capable of producing legal effects.

                  2.

                  The principle of the primacy of EU law must be interpreted as meaning that it does not require a national court to disapply a provision of national law which is incompatible with the provisions of a framework decision, such as the framework decisions at issue in the main proceedings, the legal effects of which are preserved in accordance with Article 9 of Protocol (No 36) on transitional provisions, annexed to the treaties, since those provisions do not have direct effect. The authorities of the Member States, including the courts, are nevertheless required to interpret their national law, to the greatest extent possible, in conformity with EU law, which enables them to ensure an outcome that is compatible with the objective pursued by the framework decision concerned.

         (1)  OJ C 412, 4.12.2017.


title: Case C-597/17: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Grondwettelijk Hof — Belgium) — Belgisch Syndicaat van Chiropraxie, Bart Vandendries and Others v Ministerraad (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 132(1)(c) — Exemptions — Medical and paramedical professions — Chiropractic and osteopathy — Article 98 — Annex III, points 3 and 4 — Medicinal products and medical devices — Reduced rate — Supply as part of therapeutic interventions or treatments — Standard rate — Supply as part of aesthetic interventions or treatments — Principle of fiscal neutrality — Maintenance of the effects of national legislation incompatible with EU law)

text:
               19.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 280/3

      Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Grondwettelijk Hof — Belgium) — Belgisch Syndicaat van Chiropraxie, Bart Vandendries and Others v Ministerraad
      (Case C-597/17) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 132(1)(c) - Exemptions - Medical and paramedical professions - Chiropractic and osteopathy - Article 98 - Annex III, points 3 and 4 - Medicinal products and medical devices - Reduced rate - Supply as part of therapeutic interventions or treatments - Standard rate - Supply as part of aesthetic interventions or treatments - Principle of fiscal neutrality - Maintenance of the effects of national legislation incompatible with EU law)
      (2019/C 280/03)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Referring court

      Grondwettelijk Hof

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: Belgisch Syndicaat van Chiropraxie, Bart Vandendries and Others Plast.Surg. and Others, Belgian Society for Private Clinics and Others

         Defendant: Ministerraad

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1)

                  Article 132(1)(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as not restricting the application of the exemption it provides to supplies provided by practitioners of a medical or paramedical profession regulated by the legislation of the Member State concerned.

                  2)

                  Article 98 of Directive 2006/112, read in conjunction with points (3) and (4) to Annex III to that directive, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which differentiates between medicinal products and medical devices supplied in the context of therapeutic interventions or treatments, on the one hand, and medicinal products and medical devices supplied in the context of interventions or treatments intended exclusively for aesthetic purposes, on the other hand, by excluding the latter from the benefit of the reduced rate of value added tax (VAT) applicable to the former.

                  3)

                  In circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, a national court may not make use of a national provision empowering it to maintain certain effects of a measure which has been annulled in order to maintain temporarily the effect of national provisions which it has found incompatible with Directive 2006/112 until they are made to comply with that directive, with a view, on the one hand, to limiting the risks of legal uncertainty resulting from the retroactive effect of that annulment and, on the other hand, to avoiding the application of a national regime predating those provisions and which is incompatible with that directive.

         (1)  OJ C 427 of 26.11.2018


title: Case C-723/17: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brussel — Belgium) — Lies Craeynest and Others v Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Gewest, Brussels Instituut voor Milieubeheer (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2008/50/EC — Articles 6, 7, 13 and 23 — Annex III — Assessment of air quality — Criteria for determining whether the nitrogen dioxide limit values have been exceeded — Measurements using fixed sampling points — Choice of appropriate sites — Interpretation of the values measured at the sampling points — Obligations of the Member States — Judicial review — Intensity of the review — Power to issue directions)

text:
               19.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 280/4

      Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brussel — Belgium) — Lies Craeynest and Others v Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Gewest, Brussels Instituut voor Milieubeheer
      (Case C-723/17) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2008/50/EC - Articles 6, 7, 13 and 23 - Annex III - Assessment of air quality - Criteria for determining whether the nitrogen dioxide limit values have been exceeded - Measurements using fixed sampling points - Choice of appropriate sites - Interpretation of the values measured at the sampling points - Obligations of the Member States - Judicial review - Intensity of the review - Power to issue directions)
      (2019/C 280/04)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Referring court

      Nederlandstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brussel

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: Lies Craeynest, Cristina Lopez Devaux, Frédéric Mertens, Stefan Vandereulen, Karin De Schepper, ClientEarth VZW

         Defendants: Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Gewest, Brussels Instituut voor Milieubeheer

         Other party: Belgische Staat

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Article 4(3) TEU and the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, read in conjunction with the third paragraph of Article 288 TFEU, and Articles 6 and 7 of Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe must be interpreted as meaning that it is for a national court, hearing an application submitted for that purpose by individuals directly affected by the exceedance of the limit values referred to in Article 13(1) of that directive, to verify whether the sampling points located in a particular zone have been established in accordance with the criteria laid down in paragraph 1(a) of Section B of Annex III to the directive and, if they were not, to take all necessary measures in respect of the competent national authority, such as, if provided for by national law, an order, with a view to ensuring that those sampling points are sited in accordance with those criteria.

                  2.

                  Article 13(1) and Article 23(1) of Directive 2008/50 must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to establish whether a limit value with an averaging period of one calendar year, as laid down in Annex XI to that directive, has been exceeded, it is sufficient that a pollution level higher than that value be measured at a single sampling point.

         (1)  OJ C 104, 19.3.2018.


title: Case C-454/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Heilbronn (Germany) lodged on 14 June 2019 — Criminal proceedings against ZW

text:
               19.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 280/27

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Heilbronn (Germany) lodged on 14 June 2019 — Criminal proceedings against ZW
      (Case C-454/19)
      (2019/C 280/36)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Amtsgericht Heilbronn

         Party to the main proceedings

      ZW

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Is primary and/or secondary European law, in particular Directive 2004/38/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council, in the sense of a full right of EU citizens to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, to be interpreted as meaning that it also covers national criminal provisions?

                  2.

                  If the question is answered in the affirmative: does the interpretation of primary and/or secondary European law preclude the application of a national criminal provision which penalises the retention of a child from his guardian abroad where the provision does not differentiate between Member States of the European Union and third countries?

         (1)  Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004, L 158, p. 77).


title: Case C-456/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Svea Hovrätt — (Sweden) lodged on 14 June 2019 — Östgötatrafiken AB v Patent- och registreringsverket

text:
               19.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 280/27

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Svea Hovrätt — (Sweden) lodged on 14 June 2019 — Östgötatrafiken AB v Patent- och registreringsverket
      (Case C-456/19)
      (2019/C 280/37)
      Language of the case: Swedish

         Referring court

      Svea Hovrätt

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: Östgötatrafiken AB

         Respondent: Patent- och registreringsverket

         Questions referred

      The questions concern the application of Article 4(1)(b) of Directive 2015/2436 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (1) and are as follows:

                  1.

                  Must Article 4(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Directive be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of an application for registration of a trade mark which characterises services and where the application relates to a sign, placed in a particular position, which covers large areas of the physical objects used to perform the services, it must be assessed whether the mark is not independent of the appearance of the objects concerned?

                  2.

                  If question I is answered in the affirmative, is it necessary for the trade mark to depart significantly from the norm or customs of the economic sector concerned in order for the mark to be regarded as having distinctive character?

         (1)  OJ 2015 L 336, p. 1.


title: Case C-459/19: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 17 June 2019 — Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs v Wellcome Trust Ltd

text:
               19.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 280/28

      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 17 June 2019 — Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs v Wellcome Trust Ltd
      (Case C-459/19)
      (2019/C 280/38)
      Language of the case: English

         Referring court

      Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber)

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellants: Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs

         Respondent: Wellcome Trust Ltd

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Is Article 44 of Directive 2006/112 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that when a taxable person carrying on a non-economic activity consisting of the purchase and sale of shares and other securities in the course of the management of the assets of a charitable trust acquires a supply of investment management services from a person outside of the Community exclusively for the purposes of such activity, it is to be regarded as ‘a taxable person acting as such’?

                  2.

                  If Question 1 is answered in the negative and Articles 46 to 49 of the Directive do not apply, does Article 45 of the Directive apply to the supply or does neither Article 44 or Article 45 apply to the supply?

         (1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006, L 347, p. 1).


title: Case C-463/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil de prud’hommes de Metz (France) lodged on 18 June 2019 — Syndicat CFTC du personnel de la Caisse primaire d’assurance maladie de la Moselle v Caisse primaire d’assurance maladie de Moselle

text:
               19.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 280/29

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil de prud’hommes de Metz (France) lodged on 18 June 2019 — Syndicat CFTC du personnel de la Caisse primaire d’assurance maladie de la Moselle v Caisse primaire d’assurance maladie de Moselle
      (Case C-463/19)
      (2019/C 280/39)
      Language of the case: French

         Referring court

      Conseil de prud’hommes de Metz

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Syndicat CFTC du personnel de la Caisse primaire d’assurance maladie de la Moselle

         Defendant: Caisse primaire d’assurance maladie de Moselle

         Other party: Mission nationale de contrôle et d’audit des organismes de sécurité sociale

         Question referred

      Should Directive 2006/54/EC (1) read in conjunction with Articles 8 and 157 TFEU, the general EU law principles of equal treatment and of the prohibition of discrimination, and Articles 20, 21(1) and 23 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as meaning that the provisions of Article 46 of the French national collective agreement for social security bodies, which grant female employees of social security organisations raising children on their own three months leave with half pay, one and a half months leave with full pay and unpaid leave of up to a year after maternity leave, are excluded from the scope of application of that directive?

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


title: Case C-467/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 19 June 2019 — Criminal proceedings against QR

text:
               19.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 280/29

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 19 June 2019 — Criminal proceedings against QR
      (Case C-467/19)
      (2019/C 280/40)
      Language of the case: Bulgarian

         Referring court

      Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

         Parties to the main proceedings

      QR

         Question referred

      Is case-law such as that at issue, which concerns the national law regarding the approval by the court of an agreement on the imposition of a negotiated penalty concluded between the prosecution and the defence, which provides for the consent of the other persons charged as a condition for the approval of such an agreement, and that that consent is required only during the trial stage of the proceedings, consistent with Article 7(4) of Directive 2016/343, (1) with Article 47 and Article 52 of the Charter, and with the principles of effectiveness and equality?

         (1)  Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings OJ 2016 L 65, p. 1.


title: Case C-470/19: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) made on 17 June 2019 — Friends of the Irish Environment Limited v Commissioner for Environmental Information

text:
               19.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 280/30

      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) made on 17 June 2019 — Friends of the Irish Environment Limited v Commissioner for Environmental Information
      (Case C-470/19)
      (2019/C 280/41)
      Language of the case: English

         Referring court

      High Court (Ireland)

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: Friends of the Irish Environment Limited

         Respondent: Commissioner for Environmental Information

         First Notice Party: The Courts Service of Ireland

         Question referred

      Is control of access to court records relating to proceedings in which final judgment has been delivered, the period for an appeal has expired and no appeal or further application is pending, but further applications in particular circumstances are possible, an exercise of ‘judicial capacity’ within the meaning of Article 2(2) of Directive 2003/4/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC?

         (1)  OJ 2003, L 41, p. 26.


title: Case C-472/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 20 June 2019 — Vert Marine SAS v Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances

text:
               19.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 280/31

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 20 June 2019 — Vert Marine SAS v Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances
      (Case C-472/19)
      (2019/C 280/42)
      Language of the case: French

         Referring court

      Conseil d’État

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Vert Marine SAS

         Defendant): Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Must Directive 2014/23/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on the award of concession contracts (1) be interpreted as precluding the legislation of a Member State, with an objective of promoting accountability in public procurement, from not giving an economic operator that has been convicted by final judgment of an offence of specific gravity, and that, on that ground, is the subject of a measure prohibiting it from participating in a procedure for procurement by a concession contract for a period of five years, the opportunity of providing evidence to the effect that the measures it has taken are sufficient to demonstrate its reliability despite the existence of that ground for exclusion?

                  2.

                  If Directive 2014/23/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 allows the Member States to entrust authorities other than the contracting authority concerned with the responsibility of assessing the compliance mechanism for operators, does that power enable that authority to entrust the courts with that mechanism? If so, can mechanisms such as the provisions of French law on release, judicial rehabilitation and the removal of any mention of the conviction from Bulletin No 2 of the criminal record be treated in the same way as compliance mechanisms in accordance with the directive?

         (1)  OJ 2014 L 94, p. 1.


title: Case T-182/16 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 19 June 2019 — L’Oréal v EUIPO — Guinot (MASTER DUO) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark MASTER DUO — Earlier national figurative mark MASTERS COLORS PARIS — 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)

text:
               9.9.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/39

      Judgment of the General Court of 19 June 2019 — L’Oréal v EUIPO — Guinot (MASTER DUO)
      (Case T-182/16 RENV) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark MASTER DUO - Earlier national figurative mark MASTERS COLORS PARIS - 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)
      (2019/C 305/46)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: L’Oréal (Paris, France) (represented by: T. de Haan and P. Péters, lawyers)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Guinot (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Sion, lawyer)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 February 2016 (Case R 2916/2014-5) relating to opposition proceedings between Guinot and L’Oréal.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders L’Oréal to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 222, 20.6.2016.


title: Judgment of the Court of 14 May 2019 in Case E-2/18 — C v Concordia Schweizerische Kranken- und Unfallversicherung AG, Landesvertretung Liechtenstein (Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Article 24 — Pensioner residing outside the competent State — Benefits in kind in the place of residence — Reimbursement procedure)

text:
               19.9.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/3

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      of 14 May 2019
      in Case E-2/18
      C
      v
      Concordia Schweizerische Kranken- und Unfallversicherung AG, Landesvertretung Liechtenstein

         (Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Article 24 — Pensioner residing outside the competent State — Benefits in kind in the place of residence — Reimbursement procedure)

      (2019/C 315/04)
      In Case E-2/18, C v Concordia Schweizerische Kranken- und Unfallversicherung AG, Landesvertretung Liechtenstein — REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by the Princely Court of Liechtenstein (Fürstliches Landgericht) concerning the interpretation of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, Páll Hreinsson, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Bernd Hammermann, Judges, gave judgment on 14 May 2019, the operative part of which is as follows:

                  1.

                  When a pensioner is not entitled to benefits in kind in the EEA State of residence, due to the fact that the benefits fall outside the scope of its social security system, the pensioner is entitled, pursuant to Article 24(1) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, to receive benefits in kind at the expense of the competent institution in the EEA State under whose legislation the pension is paid.

                  2.

                  The pensioner has a right to submit claims for reimbursement directly to the competent institution in the EEA State under whose legislation the pension is paid, in particular, but not only, if he has been refused reimbursement by the State of residence. In accordance with Article 22(1) of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems and Article 76(4) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004, if the competent institution does not provide the pensioner with information as to the procedure to be followed, that must not adversely affect the pensioner’s rights vis-à-vis the institution.


title: Judgment of the Court of 14 May 2019 in Case E-3/18 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland (Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Regulation (EU) 2015/1051)

text:
               19.9.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/4

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      of 14 May 2019
      in Case E-3/18
      EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland

         (Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Regulation (EU) 2015/1051)

      (2019/C 315/05)
      In Case E-3/18, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland — APPLICATION for a declaration that Iceland has failed to adopt the measures necessary to make the Act referred to at point 7ja of Annex XIX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1051 of 1 July 2015 on the modalities for the exercise of the functions of the online dispute resolution platform, on the modalities of the electronic complaint form and on the modalities of the cooperation between contact points provided for in Regulation (EU) No 524/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council on online dispute resolution for consumer disputes) as adapted by Protocol 1 to the Agreement, part of its internal legal order as required by Article 7 of the Agreement, the Court, composed of Páll Hreinsson, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Bernd Hammermann, Judges, gave judgment on 14 May 2019, the operative part of which is as follows:
      The Court hereby:

                  1.

                  Declares that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area by failing, within the time prescribed, to make part of its internal legal order the Act referred to at point 7ja of Annex XIX to the Agreement (Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1051 of 1 July 2015 on the modalities for the exercise of the functions of the online dispute resolution platform, on the modalities of the electronic complaint form and on the modalities of the cooperation between contact points provided for in Regulation (EU) No 524/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council on online dispute resolution for consumer disputes), as adapted by Protocol 1 to the Agreement.

                  2.

                  Orders Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.


title: Judgment of the Court of 14 May 2019 in Case E-4/18 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland (Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Regulation (EU) No 524/2013)

text:
               19.9.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/5

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      of 14 May 2019
      in Case E-4/18
      EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland

         (Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Regulation (EU) No 524/2013)

      (2019/C 315/06)
      In Case E-4/18, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland — APPLICATION for a declaration that Iceland has failed to adopt the measures necessary to make the Act referred to at points 7d, 7f and 7j of Annex XIX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Regulation (EU) No 524/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on online dispute resolution for consumer disputes and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2009/22/EC (Regulation on consumer ADR)), as adapted by Protocol 1 to the Agreement, part of its internal legal order as required by Article 7 of the Agreement, the Court, composed of Páll Hreinsson, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Bernd Hammermann, Judges, gave judgment on 14 May 2019, the operative part of which is as follows:
      The Court hereby:

                  1.

                  Declares that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area by failing, within the time prescribed, to make part of its internal legal order the Act referred to at points 7d, 7f and 7j of Annex XIX to the Agreement (Regulation (EU) No 524/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on online dispute resolution for consumer disputes and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2009/22/EC (Regulation on consumer ADR)), as adapted by Protocol 1 to the Agreement.

                  2.

                  Orders Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.


title: Judgment of the Court of 14 May 2019 in Case E-5/18 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland (Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Directive 2013/11/EU)

text:
               19.9.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/6

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      of 14 May 2019
      in Case E-5/18
      EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland

         (Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Directive 2013/11/EU)

      (2019/C 315/07)
      In Case E-5/18, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland — APPLICATION for a declaration that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at points 7d, 7f and 7k of Annex XIX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2013/11/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on alternative dispute resolution for consumer disputes and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2009/22/EC), as adapted by Protocol 1 to the Agreement, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed, or in any event, by failing to inform the EFTA Surveillance Authority thereof, the Court, composed of Páll Hreinsson, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Bernd Hammermann, Judges, gave judgment on 14 May 2019, the operative part of which is as follows:
      The Court hereby:

                  1.

                  Declares that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at points 7d, 7f and 7k of Annex XIX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2013/11/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on alternative dispute resolution for consumer disputes and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2009/22/EC), as adapted by Protocol 1 to the Agreement, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed.

                  2.

                  Orders Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.


title: Case T-289/18: Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2019 — Pshonka v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted with regard to the situation in Ukraine — Freezing of funds — List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list — Obligation on the Council to check that the decision of an authority of a third State was taken in observance of the rights of the defence and of the right to effective judicial protection)

text:
               30.9.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/49

      Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2019 — Pshonka v Council
      (Case T-289/18) (1)

      (Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted with regard to the situation in Ukraine - Freezing of funds - List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list - Obligation on the Council to check that the decision of an authority of a third State was taken in observance of the rights of the defence and of the right to effective judicial protection)
      (2019/C 328/54)
      Language of the case: Czech

         Parties

         Applicant: Artem Viktorovych Pshonka (Kramatorsk, Ukraine) (represented by: M. Mleziva, lawyer)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: V. Piessevaux and R. Pekař, Agents)

         Re:

      Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/333 of 5 March 2018 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2018 L 63, p. 48), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/326 of 5 March 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2018 L 63, p. 5), in so far as the applicant’s name was maintained on the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to those restrictive measures.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/333 of 5 March 2018 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/326 of 5 March 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine in so far Artem Viktorovych Pshonka’s name was maintained on the list of person, entities and bodies subject to those restrictive measures;

                  2.

                     Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 249, 16.7.2018.


title: Case T-480/16: Order of the General Court of 8 July 2019 — Lidl Stiftung v EUIPO — Amedei (For you) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark For you — Decision to reject the application for registration based on absolute grounds for refusal — No longer any locus standi — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               30.9.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/52

      Order of the General Court of 8 July 2019 — Lidl Stiftung v EUIPO — Amedei (For you)
      (Case T-480/16) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark For you - Decision to reject the application for registration based on absolute grounds for refusal - No longer any locus standi - No need to adjudicate)
      (2019/C 328/58)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany) (represented by: A. Berger and M. Wolter, lawyers)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Amedei Srl (Pontedera, Italy)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 April 2016 (Case R 851/2015-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Amedei and Lidl Stiftung.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

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

                  2.

                     Each party shall bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 402, 31.10.2016.


title: Case C-292/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 23 November 2017 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Helsingin hallinto-oikeus) — Proceedings brought by A Oy (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of establishment — Direct taxation — Corporation tax — Directive 90/434/EEC — Article 10(2) — Transfer of assets — Non-resident permanent establishment transferred, in the course of a transfer of assets, to a receiving company also non-resident — Right of the Member State of the transferring company to tax that establishment’s profits or capital gains resulting from the transfer of assets — National legislation providing for immediate taxation of the profits or capital gains in the year of transfer — Collection of the tax due as revenue of the tax year in which the transfer of assets took place)

text:
               22.1.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/11

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 23 November 2017 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Helsingin hallinto-oikeus) — Proceedings brought by A Oy
   (Case C-292/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of establishment - Direct taxation - Corporation tax - Directive 90/434/EEC - Article 10(2) - Transfer of assets - Non-resident permanent establishment transferred, in the course of a transfer of assets, to a receiving company also non-resident - Right of the Member State of the transferring company to tax that establishment’s profits or capital gains resulting from the transfer of assets - National legislation providing for immediate taxation of the profits or capital gains in the year of transfer - Collection of the tax due as revenue of the tax year in which the transfer of assets took place))
   (2018/C 022/13)
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Referring court

   Helsingin hallinto-oikeus

      Parties to the main proceedings

   A Oy

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, where a resident company, in the course of a transfer of assets, transfers a non-resident permanent establishment to a company that is also non-resident, first, provides for the immediate taxation of the capital gains resulting from the transfer and, second, does not allow deferred collection of the tax, whereas in an equivalent national situation such capital gains are not taxed until the disposal of the transferred assets, in so far as that legislation does not allow the deferred collection of the tax.

      (1)  OJ C 270, 25.7.2016.


title: Case C-31/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Bulgaria) lodged on 17 January — Elektrorazpredelenie Yug EAD v Komisia za energiyno i vodno regulirane

text:
               9.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 123/12

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Bulgaria) lodged on 17 January — Elektrorazpredelenie Yug EAD v Komisia za energiyno i vodno regulirane
   (Case C-31/18)
   (2018/C 123/18)
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Administrativen sad Sofia-grad

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Elektrorazpredelenie Yug EAD

      Defendant: Komisia za energiyno i vodno regulirane

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are the provisions of Article 2.3 and 2.5 of Directive 2009/72/EC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the voltage is the sole criterion by which the distribution system is distinguished from the transmission system and, by extension, electricity ‘distribution’ activities are distinguished from electricity ‘transmission’ activities and that, despite their freedom of action to allocate system users to either the transmission or the distribution system, Member States are not allowed to introduce ownership of the assets used to exercise those activities as an additional criterion for the purpose of distinguishing transmission activities from distribution activities?

               2.

               If the first question is answered in the affirmative: should electricity customers connected to the medium-voltage network always be treated as customers of the distribution system operator which holds a licence for the area concerned, irrespective of who owns the equipment to which the customer’s electrical installations are directly connected and irrespective of the contracts concluded directly between the customer and the transmission system operator?

               3.

               If the first question is answered in the negative: are national rules in keeping with the spirit and purpose of Directive 2009/72/EC permissible, such as those laid down in Paragraph 1(44), read in combination with Paragraph 1(20), of the Addenda to the Bulgarian Energy Law, which state that ‘transmission of electricity’ means the transport of electricity via the transmission network and that ‘electricity transmission system’ means all the power lines and installations used for the transmission, transformation from high to medium voltage and redistribution of electricity? All other things being equal, are national regulations permissible, such as those laid down in Article 88(1) of the Bulgarian Energy Law, which states that electricity is to be distributed and electricity distribution systems are to be operated by distribution network operators which own those networks in a specific area and hold an electricity distribution licence for that area?

      (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 (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2009 L 211, p. 55).


title: Case T-102/18: Action brought on 19 February 2018 — Knauf v EUIPO (upgrade your personality)

text:
               16.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/35

         Action brought on 19 February 2018 — Knauf v EUIPO (upgrade your personality)
   (Case T-102/18)
   (2018/C 134/50)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Martin Knauf (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: H. Jaeger, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark ‘upgrade your personality’ — Application for registration No 15 750 029

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 December 2017 in Case R 1011/2017-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               register the EU trade mark ‘upgrade your personality’ for the following goods in Classes 9 and 28:
               Class 9 — Recorded computer programs; Computer programs [downloadable software]; Software; Games software; Software programs for video games; Computer programmes for data processing; Computer graphics software; Virtual reality game software; Virtual reality software; Optical data carriers bearing recorded software; Pre-recorded magnetic data carriers; Video game cassettes; Videotapes; Pre-recorded videos
               Class 28 — Games consoles.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case T-63/18: Action brought on 6 February 2018 — Torro Entertainment v EUIPO — Grupo Osborne (TORRO Grande Meat in Style)

text:
               16.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/23

         Action brought on 6 February 2018 — Torro Entertainment v EUIPO — Grupo Osborne (TORRO Grande Meat in Style)
   (Case T-63/18)
   (2018/C 134/33)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Torro Entertainment (Plovdiv, Bulgaria) (represented by: A. Kostov, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Grupo Osborne, SA (El Puerto de Santa María, Spain)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark TORRO Grande Meat in Style — Application for registration No 14 744 452

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 December 2017 in Case R 1776/2017-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision in part where it dismisses the appeal against the decision of the Opposition division;

               —

               order EUIPO and Grupo Osborne S.A. to bear the costs of ‘Torro Entertainment’ Ltd. in relation to the proceeding before the Court and in relation to the appeal and opposition proceedings.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 2017/1001;

               —

               Infringement of the duty to state reasons and of the duty of diligence.


title: Case T-103/18: Action brought on 19 February 2018 — S & V Technologies v EUIPO — Smoothline (Smoothline)

text:
               16.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/36

         Action brought on 19 February 2018 — S & V Technologies v EUIPO — Smoothline (Smoothline)
   (Case T-103/18)
   (2018/C 134/51)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: S & V Technologies GmbH (Hennigsdorf, Germany) (represented by: T. Schmitz and M. Breuer, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Smoothline AG (Zurich, Switzerland)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Smoothline’ — International registration No 958 169 designating the European Union

      Proceedings before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 December 2017 in Case R 115/2017-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 95 of Regulation 2017/1001;

               —

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

               —

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


title: Case C-71/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 2 February 2018 — Skatteministeriet (Danish Ministry of Taxation) v KPC Herning

text:
               16.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/16

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 2 February 2018 — Skatteministeriet (Danish Ministry of Taxation) v KPC Herning
   (Case C-71/18)
   (2018/C 134/21)
   Language of the case: Danish

      Referring court

   Vestre Landsret

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Skatteministeriet (Danish Ministry of Taxation)

      Defendant: KPC Herning

      Question referred

   Is it compatible with Article 135(1)(j), cf. Article 12(1)(a) and (2), read in conjunction with Article 135(1)(k), cf. Article 12(1)(b) and (3), of the VAT Directive (1) for a Member State, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, to consider a supply of land on which at the time of supply there is a building as a sale of building land subject to value added tax (VAT), when it is the parties’ intention that the building is to be demolished completely or partially in order to make room for a new building?

      (1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).


title: Case T-89/18: Action brought on 19 February 2018 — Guiral Broto v EUIPO — Gastro & Soul (Café del Sol)

text:
               16.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/29

         Action brought on 19 February 2018 — Guiral Broto v EUIPO — Gastro & Soul (Café del Sol)
   (Case T-89/18)
   (2018/C 134/42)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Ramón Guiral Broto (Marbella, Spain) (represented by: J. de Castro Hermida, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Gastro & Soul GmbH (Hildesheim, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

      Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘Café del Sol’ — European Union trade mark No 6 105 985

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 December 2017 in Case R 1095/2017-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the contested decision and declare the opposition based on the earlier trade mark belonging to the opponent, Mr Ramón Guiral Broto, Spanish trade mark No 2348110, in Class 42 of the International Classification, well founded.

               —

               Uphold the decision of the Opposition Division refusing Community trade mark application No 6/105/985 CAFÉ DEL SOL, filed by the German company GASTRO & SOUL GmbH, in respect of ‘services for the provision of food and drink, temporary accommodation, catering’ in Class 43 of the International Classification, on the ground that there is a likelihood of confusion on the part of consumers as a result of the coexistence of the marks at issue given the strong verbal similarity and the identity in terms of their application. In the alternative, if the General Court lacks jurisdiction in that regard, it should refer the matter back to the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market, provided that the opposition is deemed to be well founded.

               —

               In the further alternative, (i) annul the contested decision because of inconsistency and infringement of the applicant’s rights of defence and legal certainty by having expressly denied him the possibility of submitting a full translation of the opponent’s earlier trade mark in the context of Case R 1095/2017-4, thereby defeating one of the main purposes of the referral of the case back to EUIPO’s Board of Appeal ordered by the General Court on 13 December 2016 in Case T-548/15, and (ii) order a further referral back to EUIPO’s Board of Appeal to remedy that situation and settle the dispute.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 2017/1001.


title: Case C-90/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Visoki upravni sud (Croatia) lodged on 8 February 2018 — Hrvatska banka za obnovu i razvitak (HBOR) v Povjerenik za informiranje Republike Hrvatske

text:
               16.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/16

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Visoki upravni sud (Croatia) lodged on 8 February 2018 — Hrvatska banka za obnovu i razvitak (HBOR) v Povjerenik za informiranje Republike Hrvatske
   (Case C-90/18)
   (2018/C 134/22)
   Language of the case: Croatian

      Referring court

   Visoki upravni sud

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Hrvatska banka za obnovu i razvitak (HBOR)

      Defendant: Povjerenik za informiranje Republike Hrvatske

      Question referred

   Must the provisions of the second subparagraph of Article 15(3) TFEU and Articles 4(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43) be interpreted as precluding national legislation providing that access to information regarding the use of public funds must always be permitted, without exceptions, even when access to that information is restricted on account of its constituting a trade (banking) secret?


title: Case T-91/18: Action brought on 16 February 2018 — Equity Cheque Capital Corporation v EUIPO (DIAMOND CARD)

text:
               16.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/31

         Action brought on 16 February 2018 — Equity Cheque Capital Corporation v EUIPO (DIAMOND CARD)
   (Case T-91/18)
   (2018/C 134/44)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Equity Cheque Capital Corporation (Victoria, Canada) (represented by: I. Berkeley, barrister, P. Wheeler and C. Rani, solicitors)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark DIAMOND CARD — Application for registration No 15 775 422

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 December 2017 in Case R 1544/2017-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 2017/1001.


title: Case T-107/18: Action brought on 20 February 2018 — Aytekin v EUIPO — Dienne Salotti (Dienne)

text:
               16.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/38

         Action brought on 20 February 2018 — Aytekin v EUIPO — Dienne Salotti (Dienne)
   (Case T-107/18)
   (2018/C 134/54)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant(s): Erkan Aytekin (Ankara, Turkey) (represented by: V. Martín Santos, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Dienne Salotti SRL a socio unico (Altamura, Italy)

      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 EU figurative mark Dienne — Application for registration No 15 080 302

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 December 2017 in Case R 1444/2017-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order Applicant/Intervener and/or the EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the Appellant in connection with this appeal, and all procedural costs generated by EUIPO decisions.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 2017/1001.


title: Case T-316/15: Judgment of the General Court of 1 March 2018 — Poland v Commission (ERDF — Refusal to confirm a financial contribution to a major project — Article 40(g) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 — Justification for the public contribution — Article 41(2) of Regulation No 1083/2006 — Time-limit not respected)

text:
               23.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/41

         Judgment of the General Court of 1 March 2018 — Poland v Commission
   (Case T-316/15) (1)

   ((ERDF - Refusal to confirm a financial contribution to a major project - Article 40(g) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 - Justification for the public contribution - Article 41(2) of Regulation No 1083/2006 - Time-limit not respected))
   (2018/C 142/52)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B.-R. Killmann, D. Recchia and M. Siekierzyńska, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2015) 2230 of 31 March 2015 refusing to confirm to the Republic of Poland a financial contribution from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) to the major project ‘Creation of Innovative Services at the IBM Shared Services Centre in Wrocław’ under Priority Axis No 4 of the operational programme ‘Innovative Economy’.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.


title: Case C-39/18 P: Appeal brought on 22 January 2018 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 10 November 2017 in Case T-180/15: Icap plc and Others v European Commission

text:
               23.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/26

         Appeal brought on 22 January 2018 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 10 November 2017 in Case T-180/15: Icap plc and Others v European Commission
   (Case C-39/18 P)
   (2018/C 142/35)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: T. Christoforou, V. Bottka, M. Farley, B. Mongin, Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Icap plc, Icap Management Services Ltd, Icap New Zealand Ltd (ICAP)

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment (§ § 281-299 and the operative part) insofar as it annuls the fines in Article 2 of the contested decision;

               —

               dismiss the fifth and sixth pleas of ICAP’s application before the General Court, relating to the fines, and establish the appropriate fines on ICAP by applying its unlimited jurisdiction;

               —

               order ICAP to bear the entirety of the costs of these proceedings and to adjust the order on costs in the judgment at first instance in order to reflect the outcome of the present appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission bases its appeal on the following single ground of appeal:
   The Commission submits that in its judgment in Case T-180/15 Icap plc and Others v Commission, EU:T:2017:795 the General Court incorrectly applied the case law of the Court of Justice on the statement of reasons required when imposing fines. The General Court’s judgment deviates from the leading judgment in Case C-194/14 P, AC Treuhand v Commission, EU:C:2015:717, § § 66-68 and imposes a stricter obligation on the Commission to motivate in more detail the methodology used in calculating fines imposed for breaches of Article 101 TFEU, especially when applying point 37 of the Guidelines on Fines. The Commission’s appeal aims at correcting the serious errors of law committed by the General Court, which, if accepted, would be detrimental to the Commission’s ability to determine adequate fines so as to achieve sufficient deterrence. A properly construed duty of reasoning, which corresponds to the case law requirements recalled in Case C-194/14 P, AC Treuhand, § 68, is essential to achieve that aim. By contrast, a stricter obligation of motivation on the fines, encompassing the internal deliberations and calculations of intermediary steps, impinges on the Commission’s margin of discretion in setting fines, including when it relies on point 37 of the Guidelines on Fines. The latter was designed precisely with the purpose of allowing the Commission to deviate from the Guidelines on Fines in atypical cases, such as when imposing fines on facilitators. As the Union Courts have recognised, the Commission needs to preserve its power of assessment and discretion in setting appropriate fines.


title: Case T-402/15: Judgment of the General Court of 1 March 2018 — Poland v Commission (ERDF — Refusal to confirm a financial contribution to a major project — Article 41(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 — Assessment of the contribution of a major project to the achievement of the objectives of the operational programme — Article 41(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 — Time limit exceeded)

text:
               23.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/41

         Judgment of the General Court of 1 March 2018 — Poland v Commission
   (Case T-402/15) (1)

   ((ERDF - Refusal to confirm a financial contribution to a major project - Article 41(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 - Assessment of the contribution of a major project to the achievement of the objectives of the operational programme - Article 41(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 - Time limit exceeded))
   (2018/C 142/53)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B.-R. Killmann and M. Siekierzyńska, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2015) 3228 final of 11 May 2015, refusing to confirm to the Republic of Poland a financial contribution from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) to the major project ‘European Shared Services Centre — Intelligent Logistics Systems’ in the context of Priority Axis 4 of operational programme ‘Innovative Economy’.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 311, 21.9.2015.


title: Case T-41/18: Action brought on 24 January 2018 — Autoridad Portuaria de Vigo v Commission

text:
               23.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/52

         Action brought on 24 January 2018 — Autoridad Portuaria de Vigo v Commission
   (Case T-41/18)
   (2018/C 142/69)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Autoridad Portuaria de Vigo (Vigo, Spain) (represented by: J. Costas Alonso, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               ensure that the European Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, fulfills its obligation to ensure the uniform application of Community provisions by all the Member States, takes action to guarantee uniform application of EU legislation relating to imports of products of animal origin from third countries in all Member States, and standardises the rules governing such controls;

               —

               in particular, order the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety to carry out a comparative analysis on the application of EU legislation that regulates imports of products of animal origin from third countries through the ports of Vigo and Leixoes (Portugal).

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant claims that inconsistent application of EU legislation in relation to the importation of frozen and refrigerated fishery products from non-EU countries has skewed competition rules and the level playing field, leading to a distortion of the internal market.
   In that regard, it also submits that ports play a key role in freight transportation and, more specifically, in relation to imports of fishery products, 76 % of which enter through ports.


title: Case C-64/16: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 27 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portugueses v Tribunal de Contas (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 19(1) TEU — Legal remedies — Effective judicial protection — Judicial independence — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 47 — Reduction of remuneration in the national public administration — Budgetary austerity measures)

text:
               23.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/2

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 27 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portugueses v Tribunal de Contas
   (Case C-64/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 19(1) TEU - Legal remedies - Effective judicial protection - Judicial independence - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 47 - Reduction of remuneration in the national public administration - Budgetary austerity measures))
   (2018/C 142/02)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portugueses

      Defendant: Tribunal de Contas

      Operative part of the judgment

   The second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU must be interpreted as meaning that the principle of judicial independence does not preclude general salary-reduction measures, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, linked to requirements to eliminate an excessive budget deficit and to an EU financial assistance programme, from being applied to the members of the Tribunal de Contas (Court of Auditors, Portugal).

      (1)  OJ C 156, 2.5.2016.


title: Case T-140/16: Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2018 –Le Pen v Parliament (Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances of Members of the European Parliament — Parliamentary assistance allowance — Recovery of sums unduly paid — Authority of the Secretary-General — Burden of proof — Obligation to state reasons — Misuse of powers — Error of fact — Equal treatment)

text:
               23.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/42

         Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2018 –Le Pen v Parliament
   (Case T-140/16) (1)

   ((Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances of Members of the European Parliament - Parliamentary assistance allowance - Recovery of sums unduly paid - Authority of the Secretary-General - Burden of proof - Obligation to state reasons - Misuse of powers - Error of fact - Equal treatment))
   (2018/C 142/55)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Jean-Marie Le Pen (Saint-Cloud, France) (represented initially by M. Ceccaldi and J.-P. Le Moigne, subsequently by M. Ceccaldi, and finally by F. Wagner, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by S. Seyr and G. Corstens, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the Secretary-General of the Parliament of 29 January 2016 relating to the recovery from the applicant of a sum of EUR 320 026,23 unduly paid for parliamentary assistance and of the related debit note of 4 February 2016.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Jean-Marie Le Pen to pay the costs, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures.

      (1)  OJ C 191, 30.5.2016.


title: Case C-44/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia (Spain) lodged on 24 January 2018 — Cobra Servicios Auxiliares, S.A. v FOGASA, Jesús Valiño López and Incatema, S.L.

text:
               23.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/27

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia (Spain) lodged on 24 January 2018 — Cobra Servicios Auxiliares, S.A. v FOGASA, Jesús Valiño López and Incatema, S.L.
   (Case C-44/18)
   (2018/C 142/37)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Cobra Servicios Auxiliares, S.A.

      Respondents: FOGASA, Jesús Valiño López and Incatema, S.L.

      Questions referred

               (1)

               Must Clause 4 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work contained in the Annex to Directive 1999/70 (1) be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, in respect of the same set of facts (the termination of a contract for services (contrata) between the employer and a third-party undertaking at the latter’s instigation), provides for a lower level of compensation for (i) termination of a fixed-term contract (contrato) for a specific task or service with a term of the same duration as that of the contract between the employer and the third-party undertaking than it does for (ii) termination of the permanent contracts of comparable workers under a collective redundancy that is justified on production-related grounds pertaining to the employer and arises from the termination of the contract between the employer and the third-party undertaking?

               (2)

               If the answer is in the affirmative, is the unequal treatment between workers on fixed-term contracts and comparable permanent workers as regards compensation for termination of contract in cases where termination is prompted by the same factual circumstances but based on different legal grounds to be considered to constitute discrimination of the type prohibited in Article 21 of the Charter, inasmuch as it is contrary to the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination in Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter, which form part of the general principles of EU law?

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


title: Case T-64/18: Action brought on 6 February 2018 — Alfamicro v Commission

text:
               23.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/52

         Action brought on 6 February 2018 — Alfamicro v Commission
   (Case T-64/18)
   (2018/C 142/70)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: Alfamicro — Sistema de Computadores — Sociedade Unipessoal, Lda (Cascais, Portugal) (represented by: G. Gentil Anastácio and D. Pirra Xarepe, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               first, declare that Commission Decision (2017) 8839 final of 13 December 2017 on the recovery of a debt is null and void in so far as it relates to debit note No 3241507078 and, secondly, annul that decision as to the remainder;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant relies on the following pleas in law:

               1.

               With regard to the application for a declaration that the decision is null and void, the applicant relies on the Commission’s appropriation of the powers of the judiciary, in that it substituted the decision of the General Court of 14 November 2017 in Case T-831/14, in which the Court set the European Union’s claim relating to a specific debt, with a different, enforceable, decision relating to that debt, in breach of Article 19 TEU and Article 272 TFEU;

               2.

               With regard to the application for annulment, the applicant relies on:

                           —

                           a failure to provide adequate reasons, in that the Commission merely stated that certain systemic errors were found in the checks made in the financial audit carried out in the agreement which is the subject of the contested decision, without, however, explaining what those errors are;

                           —

                           misuse of powers, in that, by automatically extending the conclusions of a financial audit carried out in the context of one contractual relationship to other contractual relationships, the Commission infringed the second paragraph of Article 135(5) of Regulation No 966/2012 (1) and a fundamental principle of administrative contracts in general, and public contracts in particular, that is to say, the inviolability of the remuneration clause.

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


title: Case C-266/16: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 27 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) — United Kingdom) — The Queen, on the application of: Western Sahara Campaign UK v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Morocco — Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities provided for by the agreement — Acts approving the conclusion of the agreement and of the protocol — Regulations allocating among the Member States the fishing opportunities set out by the protocol — Jurisdiction — Interpretation — Validity having regard to Article 3(5) TEU and international law — Applicability of that agreement and that protocol to the territory of Western Sahara and the waters adjacent thereto)

text:
               23.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/3

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 27 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) — United Kingdom) — The Queen, on the application of: Western Sahara Campaign UK v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
   (Case C-266/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Morocco - Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities provided for by the agreement - Acts approving the conclusion of the agreement and of the protocol - Regulations allocating among the Member States the fishing opportunities set out by the protocol - Jurisdiction - Interpretation - Validity having regard to Article 3(5) TEU and international law - Applicability of that agreement and that protocol to the territory of Western Sahara and the waters adjacent thereto))
   (2018/C 142/03)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: The Queen, on the application of: Western Sahara Campaign UK

      Defendants: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

      Intervener: Confédération marocaine de l’agriculture et du développement rural (Comader)

      Operative part of the judgment

   Since neither the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Morocco nor the Protocol between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco setting out the fishing opportunities and financial contribution provided for in the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco are applicable to the waters adjacent to the territory of Western Sahara, consideration of the first question referred for a preliminary ruling has revealed nothing capable of affecting the validity of Council Regulation (EC) No 764/2006 of 22 May 2006 on the conclusion of that agreement, Council Decision 2013/785/EU of 16 December 2013 on the conclusion of that protocol, and Council Regulation (EU) No 1270/2013 of 15 November 2013 on the allocation of fishing opportunities under that protocol, in the light of Article 3(5) TEU.

      (1)  OJ C 260, 18.7.2016.


title: Case C-46/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 25 January 2018 — Caseificio Sociale San Rocco Soc. coop. arl and Others v Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (the AGEA), Regione Veneto

text:
               23.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/28

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 25 January 2018 — Caseificio Sociale San Rocco Soc. coop. arl and Others v Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (the AGEA), Regione Veneto
   (Case C-46/18)
   (2018/C 142/38)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Caseificio Sociale San Rocco Soc. coop. arl, S.s. Franco and Maurizio Artuso, Sebastiano Bolzon, Claudio Matteazzi, Roberto Tellatin

      Respondents: Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (the AGEA), Regione Veneto

      Questions referred

               1.

               In a situation such as that described in the case in the main proceedings, must EU law be interpreted to the effect that the consequence of the conflict of a legislative provision of a Member State with the third paragraph of Article 2(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 (1) is that producers are not obliged to pay the additional levy if the conditions laid down by that Regulation are met?

               2.

               In a situation such as that described in the case in the main proceedings, must EU law and, in particular, the general principle of protection of legitimate expectations, be interpreted as meaning that the expectations of persons who have performed an obligation laid down by a Member State and have benefited from the effects associated with performance of that obligation may not be protected, if that obligation has proved to be in conflict with EU law?

               3.

               In a situation such as that described in the case in the main proceedings, do Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1392/2001 (2) of 9 July 2001 and the EU concept of ‘priority category’ preclude a provision of a Member State, such as Article 2(3) of Decree-Law No 157/2004, adopted by the Republic of Italy, which lays down varying methods for refunding an additional levy that has been over-charged, drawing a distinction, in terms of timetables and methods of repayment, between producers that have relied upon due compliance with a national provision that has proved to be in conflict with EU law and producers who have not complied with such a provision?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92, of 28 December 1992, establishing an additional levy in the milk and milk products sector (OJ 1992 L 405, p. 1).

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1392/2001 of 9 July 2001 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 establishing an additional levy on milk and milk products (OJ 2001 L 187, p. 19).


title: Case C-297/16: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 1 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti — Romania) — Colegiul Medicilor Veterinari din România (CMVRO) v Autoritatea Naţională Sanitară Veterinară şi pentru Siguranţa Alimentelor (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2006/123/EC — Services in the internal market — National legislation limiting the right to retail, use and administer veterinary medicinal, anti-parasitic and organic products to veterinary practitioners — Freedom of establishment — Requirement that the share capital of establishments retailing veterinary medicinal products be held only by veterinary practitioners — Protection of public health — Proportionality)

text:
               23.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/4

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 1 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti — Romania) — Colegiul Medicilor Veterinari din România (CMVRO) v Autoritatea Naţională Sanitară Veterinară şi pentru Siguranţa Alimentelor
   (Case C-297/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2006/123/EC - Services in the internal market - National legislation limiting the right to retail, use and administer veterinary medicinal, anti-parasitic and organic products to veterinary practitioners - Freedom of establishment - Requirement that the share capital of establishments retailing veterinary medicinal products be held only by veterinary practitioners - Protection of public health - Proportionality))
   (2018/C 142/04)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Curtea de Apel Bucureşti

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Colegiul Medicilor Veterinari din România (CMVRO)

      Defendant: Autoritatea Naţională Sanitară Veterinară şi pentru Siguranţa Alimentelor

      Operative part of the judgment

               (1)

               Article 15 of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market is to be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which veterinary practitioners have an exclusive right to retail and use organic products, special purpose anti-parasitic products and veterinary medicinal products.

               (2)

               Article 15 of Directive 2006/123 is to be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which shares in establishments retailing veterinary medicinal products must be owned exclusively by one or more veterinary practitioners.

      (1)  OJ C 314, 29.8.2016.


title: Case T-462/16: Judgment of the General Court of 9 March 2018 — Portugal v Commission (FEAGA — Expenditure excluded from financing — Area-related aid — Expenditure incurred by Portugal — Legitimate Expectations — Article 41(3) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 — Article 31(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 — Proportionality)

text:
               23.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/44

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 March 2018 — Portugal v Commission
   (Case T-462/16) (1)

   ((FEAGA - Expenditure excluded from financing - Area-related aid - Expenditure incurred by Portugal - Legitimate Expectations - Article 41(3) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 - Article 31(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 - Proportionality))
   (2018/C 142/57)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, M. Figueiredo, J. Saraiva de Almeida and P. Estêvão, acting as Acting as Agents

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Sauka, acting as Agent, assisted by M. Marques Mendes and A. Dias Henriques, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/1059 of 20 June 2016 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2016 L 173, p. 59), in so far as it concerns the Portuguese Republic.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 392, 24.10.2016.


title: Case T-624/16: Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2018 — Gollnisch v Parliament (Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament — Parliamentary assistance allowance — Recovery of sums unduly paid — Power of the Secretary-General — Electa una via — Rights of the defence — Burden of proof — Obligation to state reasons — Legitimate expectations — Political rights — Equal treatment — Misuse of power — Independence of the Members — Error of fact — Proportionality)

text:
               23.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/44

         Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2018 — Gollnisch v Parliament
   (Case T-624/16) (1)

   ((Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament - Parliamentary assistance allowance - Recovery of sums unduly paid - Power of the Secretary-General - Electa una via - Rights of the defence - Burden of proof - Obligation to state reasons - Legitimate expectations - Political rights - Equal treatment - Misuse of power - Independence of the Members - Error of fact - Proportionality))
   (2018/C 142/58)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Bruno Gollnisch (Villiers-le-Mahieu, France) (represented by: N. Fakiroff, then F. Wagner, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: G. Corstens and S. Seyr, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of the decision of the Secretary-General of the Parliament of 1 July 2016 concerning the recovery from the applicant of a sum of EUR 275 984,23 wrongfully paid as parliamentary assistance allowance and the debit note of 5 July 2016 relating thereto.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders Mr Bruno Gollnisch to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament, including those related to the interlocutory proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 383, 17.10.2016.


title: Case C-76/17: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 1 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie — Romania) — SC Petrotel-Lukoil SA, Maria Magdalena Georgescu v Ministerul Economiei, Ministerul Energiei, Ministerul Finanţelor Publice (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Charges having an effect equivalent to customs duties — Article 30 TFEU — Internal taxation — Article 110 TFEU — Charge applied to exported petroleum products — Charge not passed on to the consumer — Tax burden for the taxpayer — Reimbursement of the sums paid by the taxpayer)

text:
               23.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/13

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 1 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie — Romania) — SC Petrotel-Lukoil SA, Maria Magdalena Georgescu v Ministerul Economiei, Ministerul Energiei, Ministerul Finanţelor Publice
   (Case C-76/17) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Charges having an effect equivalent to customs duties - Article 30 TFEU - Internal taxation - Article 110 TFEU - Charge applied to exported petroleum products - Charge not passed on to the consumer - Tax burden for the taxpayer - Reimbursement of the sums paid by the taxpayer))
   (2018/C 142/18)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: SC Petrotel-Lukoil SA, Maria Magdalena Georgescu

      Defendants: Ministerul Economiei, Ministerul Energiei, Ministerul Finanţelor Publice

      Operative part of the judgment

   EU law, in particular Article 30 TFEU, must be interpreted as meaning that the taxpayer, who in fact pays the charge having an equivalent effect contrary to that article, must be able to obtain reimbursement of the sums which it has paid by way of that charge, even in a situation where the payment mechanism for the charge has been designed in national legislation so that the charge is passed on to the consumer.

      (1)  OJ C 151, 15.5.2017.