title: Case T-520/18: Action brought on 29 August 2018 — BGC Partners v EUIPO — Bankgirocentralen BGC (BGC PARTNERS)

text:
               29.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/33

      Action brought on 29 August 2018 — BGC Partners v EUIPO — Bankgirocentralen BGC (BGC PARTNERS)
      (Case T-520/18)
      (2018/C 392/41)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: BGC Partners LP (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: P. Walsh, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bankgirocentralen BGC AB (Stockholm, Sweden)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

         Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark BGC PARTNERS — European Union trade mark No 3 808 185

         Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 June 2018 in Case R 2185/2014-5.

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision, in so far as the Board of Appeal determined that the registration should be declared invalid for ‘financial affairs; monetary affairs; banking services; financial services; financial clearing’ in class 36;

                  —

                  order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the present proceedings;

                  —

                  alter the contested decision with regard to the order for costs and order, pursuant to Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the unsuccessful intervener to pay the costs incurred in the Board of Appeal and the opposition proceedings.

         Pleas in law

                  —

                  The Board of Appeal incorrectly found that evidence of use was sufficient to demonstrate genuine use of the mark;

                  —

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


title: Case T-533/18: Action brought on 6 September 2018 — Wanda Films and Wanda Visión v EUIPO — Dalian Wanda Group Co. (WANDA FILMS)

text:
               5.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/46

      Action brought on 6 September 2018 — Wanda Films and Wanda Visión v EUIPO — Dalian Wanda Group Co. (WANDA FILMS)
      (Case T-533/18)
      (2018/C 399/61)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicants: Wanda Films, SL (Pozuelo de Alarcón, Spain) ans Wanda Visión, SA (Pozuelo de Alarcón) (represented by: C. Planas Silva, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Dalian Wanda Group Co. Ltd (Dalian, China)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Wanda Films, SL

         Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark WANDA FILMS — Application for registration No 13 912 829

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 June 2018 in Case R 401/2017-5

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  admit the present application, the arguments and documents (including the ones presented with this application and the ones presented by the applicant during the opposition and appeal proceedings);

                  —

                  override the contested decision;

                  —

                  issue a decision that admits the registration of the trade mark defended by the applicant with the present application.

         Plea in law

                  —

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


title: Case T-392/17 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — TE v Commission (Interim measures — Dismissal of the action in the main proceedings — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               5.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/35

      Order of the President of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — TE v Commission
      (Case T-392/17 R)
      ((Interim measures - Dismissal of the action in the main proceedings - No need to adjudicate))
      (2018/C 399/47)
      Language of the case: Czech

         Parties

         Applicant: TE (represented by J. Bartončík, lawyer)

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

         Re:

      Application pursuant to Articles 278 and 279 TFEU for suspension of the decision to open an external investigation, carried out by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), [confidential], (1) concerning the applicant as a person concerned and relating to [confidential]

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  There is no need to adjudicate on the application for interim measures.

                  2.

                  TE shall pay the costs.

         (1)  Confidential information omitted.


title: Case C-530/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Ilfov (Romania) lodged on 13 August 2018 — EP v FO

text:
               5.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/23

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Ilfov (Romania) lodged on 13 August 2018 — EP v FO
      (Case C-530/18)
      (2018/C 399/32)
      Language of the case: Romanian

         Referring court

      Tribunalul Ilfov

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant at first instance: EP

         Respondent at first instance: FO

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Must Article 15 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility (1) be interpreted as establishing an exception to the rule that the national courts of the place where the child is actually resident are to have jurisdiction?

                  2.

                  Must Article 15 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility be interpreted as meaning that the facts set out by a party to proceedings (namely: the child was born in France, her father is a French citizen, her blood relations in France include two sisters and a brother, a niece (her sister’s daughter), her paternal grandfather, her father’s current partner and their minor daughter, whereas she has no family ties on her mother’s side in Romania, she attends French school, her upbringing and mentality have always been French, the language spoken at home between the parents and by the parents to the child has always been French) are factors indicating that the child has a particular connection with France, and must the national court therefore declare that the French courts are better placed to hear the case?

                  3.

                  Must Article 15 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility be interpreted as meaning that the procedural differences between the legislation of the two States, such as hearings held in camera by specialised judges, are subject to the best interests of the child for the purposes of that provision [of EU law]?

         (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 (OJ 2003 L 338, p. 1).


title: Case C-576/18: Action brought on 12 September 2018 — European Commission v Italian Republic

text:
               5.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/24

      Action brought on 12 September 2018 — European Commission v Italian Republic
      (Case C-576/18)
      (2018/C 399/33)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky and D. Recchia, acting as Agents)

         Defendant: Italian Republic

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  declare that, by having failed to adopt all the measures necessary to ensure compliance with the judgment of the Court of 29 March 2012 in Case C-243/10, concerning the recovery from beneficiaries of the aid held to be unlawful and incompatible with the common market within the meaning of Commission Decision 2008/854/EC (1) of 2 July 2008, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that decision and Article 260 TFEU;

                  —

                  order the Italian Republic to pay to the Commission a lump sum, the amount of which is calculated by multiplying a per diem amount of EUR 13 892 by the number of days over which the failure to fulfil obligations persists, and representing a minimum of EUR 8 715 000, from the date of delivery of the judgment in Case C-243/10 until the date of judgment in the present case;

                  —

                  order the Italian Republic to pay to the Commission a penalty on a half yearly basis, fixed by the Commission as from the semester following the date of judgment in the present case and equivalent to EUR 126 840 per day;

                  —

                  order the Italian Republic to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      By Decision 2008/854/EC of 2 July 2008, concerning an aid scheme for the hotel industry in Sardinia (Regional Law No 9 of 1998 — misuse of aid measure No 272/98), published in the
            Official Journal of the European Union L 302 of 13 November 2008, the Commission declared that the State aid in question granted by Italy was unlawful and incompatible with the internal market and ordered its recovery.
      By judgment of 29 March 2012 in Case C-243/10, Commission v Italy, the Court declared that Italy had failed in its obligations under that decision by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all of the measures necessary to ensure recovery from the beneficiaries of the aid granted in the context of the scheme set out under that decision.
      After a period of more than six years since that judgment, despite the numerous requests made by the Commission to the Italian Government, a large part of the aid in question has not yet been recovered. The arguments put forward in that respect by the Italian Government, in particular in relation to pending national proceedings, do not amount to valid justifications for such a failure. It therefore follows that, as at the date of filing of the present action, Italy has not yet recovered all of the aid and has thus not complied in full with the judgment of the Court in Case C-243/10.
      The Commission accordingly requests the Court to declare that Italy has infringed Article 260 TFEU and to order it to pay a lump sum and a half-yearly penalty for as long as there is not full compliance with the judgment in Case C-243/10.

         (1)  Commission Decision 2008/854/EC of 2 July 2008 on State aid scheme ‘Regional Law No 9 of 1998 — misuse of aid measure No 272/98’ C 1/04 (ex NN 158/03 and CP 15/2003) (OJ 2008 L 302, p. 9).


title: Case T-540/18: Action brought on 11 September 2018 — ASL Aviation Holdings and ASL Airlines (Ireland)/Commission

text:
               5.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/49

      Action brought on 11 September 2018 — ASL Aviation Holdings and ASL Airlines (Ireland)/Commission
      (Case T-540/18)
      (2018/C 399/64)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicants: ASL Aviation Holdings DAC (Swords, Ireland) and ASL Airlines (Ireland) Ltd (Swords) (represented by: N. Travers, Senior Counsel, H. Kelly, K. McKenna and R. Scanlan, Solicitors)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicants claim that the Court should:

                  —

                  hold the defendant liable on the basis of Article 268 TFEU and the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU for the damages incurred by the applicants in the sum of approximately EUR 263,6 million, or such other sum as the Court may rule to be appropriate, arising from the unlawfulness of Commission Decision C(2013) 431, Case COMP/M.6570 UPS/TNT Express, of 30 January 2013 prohibiting a concentration between UPS and TNT Express NV and consequently the Commission’s breach of ASL’s entitlement to sound administration;

                  —

                  hold the defendant liable to pay default interest, starting from the date of delivery of the Court’s judgment determining this action until full payment, at the rate set by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations, increased by two percentage points, on the sum of EUR 263,6 million or on such other sum as the Court may rule to be appropriate; and

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The applicants seek compensation for the loss allegedly suffered as a consequence of Commission Decision C(2013) 431, Case COMP/M.6570 UPS/TNT Express (‘the Decision’) which was annulled by the judgment of 7 March 2017, United Parcel Service v Commission, T-194/13, EU:T:2017:144.
      In support of the action, the applicants rely on five pleas in law.

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging that the Decision is tainted with serious breaches of rules of law that are intended to confer protection on individuals, including the applicants, as a direct consequence of which the applicants were precluded from realising the benefits associated with agreements they had entered into in November 2012.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant’s conduct in significantly failing to follow proper procedures in its merger-control review assessment of the notified concentration, which resulted in the annulment of the Decision, so departed from an approach commensurate with the applicants’ rights to good administration and due diligence by the defendant in the exercise of that assessment, as guaranteed by Article 18(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1), Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and by the general principles of EU law, that it breached rules of law that are intended to confer protection on all individuals directly affected by the Decision, including the applicants.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging that the Decision is further tainted with manifest and serious defects affecting the defendant’s assessment therein of the notified concentration, as claimed by UPS in the action for non-contractual liability brought by it against the Commission in Case T-834/17 — upon which, in the interest of the sound and efficient administration of justice, the applicants rely, insofar as is necessary to sustain their damages claim — with regard to: the price concentration analysis, the efficiencies analysis, the assessment of FedEx’s competitiveness and the assessment of the closeness of competition made by the defendant in the Decision.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging that the applicants are entitled to damages for the non-contractual liability of the defendant resulting from its having, in unlawfully making the Decision and preventing the notified concentration, infringed the applicants’ freedom to conduct a business and their right to property as protected by Articles 16 and 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as well as by the general principles of EU law.

                  5.

                  Fifth plea in law, alleging that these breaches in turn caused the applicants’ losses, because, had they not occurred, the applicants would have been in a position to realise the benefits of the agreements they had entered into in November 2012, with the result that the applicants should now be put, by way of reparatory compensation, in the position they would have been in but for the unlawfulness of the Decision, and this action is the sole means of ensuring that they can be so compensated.

         (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (the EC Merger Regulation) (OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1).


title: Case C-57/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 September 2018 — ClientEarth v European Commission (Appeal — Access to documents of the EU institutions — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 — Impact assessment report, draft impact assessment report and opinion of the Impact Assessment Board — Legislative initiatives in respect of environmental matters — Refusal to grant access — Disclosure of the documents requested in the course of the proceedings — Continuing interest in bringing proceedings — Exception relating to the protection of the ongoing decision-making process of an EU institution — General presumption)

text:
               5.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/2

      Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 September 2018 — ClientEarth v European Commission
      (Case C-57/16 P) (1)

      ((Appeal - Access to documents of the EU institutions - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 - Impact assessment report, draft impact assessment report and opinion of the Impact Assessment Board - Legislative initiatives in respect of environmental matters - Refusal to grant access - Disclosure of the documents requested in the course of the proceedings - Continuing interest in bringing proceedings - Exception relating to the protection of the ongoing decision-making process of an EU institution - General presumption))
      (2018/C 399/02)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellant: ClientEarth (represented by: O.W. Brouwer, J. Wolfhagen and F. Heringa, advocaten)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents)

         Interveners in support of the appellant: Republic of Finland (represented by: H. Leppo and J. Heliskoski, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk, C. Meyer-Seitz, U. Persson and N. Otte Widgren, acting as Agents)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 13 November 2015, ClientEarth v Commission (T-424/14 and T-425/14, EU:T:2015:848);

                  2.

                  Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 1 April 2014 refusing to grant access to an impact assessment report for a proposed binding instrument setting a strategic framework for risk-based inspection and surveillance in relation to EU environmental legislation and an opinion of the Impact Assessment Board;

                  3.

                  Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 3 April 2014 refusing to grant access to a draft impact assessment report relating to access to justice in environmental matters at Member State level in the field of EU environmental policy and an opinion of the Impact Assessment Board;

                  4.

                  Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by ClientEarth at first instance and on appeal;

                  5.

                  Orders the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden to bear their own costs in relation to the appeal proceedings.

         (1)  OJ C 191, 30.5.2016.


title: Case T-337/18 R and T-347/18 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 24 August 2018 — Laboratoire Pareva and Biotech3D v Commission (Interim relief — Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 — Biocidal products — Active substance PHMB (1415; 4.7) — Approval refused — Application for interim measures — Prima facie case — Weighing up of competing interests)

text:
               5.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/35

      Order of the President of the General Court of 24 August 2018 — Laboratoire Pareva and Biotech3D v Commission
      (Case T-337/18 R and T-347/18 R)
      ((Interim relief - Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 - Biocidal products - Active substance PHMB (1415; 4.7) - Approval refused - Application for interim measures - Prima facie case - Weighing up of competing interests))
      (2018/C 399/48)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant in case T-337/18 R: Laboratoire Pareva (Saint-Martin-de-Crau, France) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem and S. Englebert, lawyers)

         Applicants in case T-347/18 R: Laboratoire Pareva (Saint-Martin-de-Crau, France) and Biotech3D Ltd & Co. KG (Gampern, Austria) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem and S. Englebert, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lindenthal and K. Mifsud-Bonnici, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application pursuant to Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking suspension of operation of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/619 of 20 April 2018 not approving PHMB (1415; 4.7) as an existing active substance for use in biocidal products of product-types 1, 5 and 6 (OJ 2018 L 102, p. 21) and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/613 of 20 April 2018 approving PHMB (1415; 4.7) as an existing active substance for use in biocidal products of product-types 2 and 4 (OJ 2018 L 102, p. 1), and the adoption of any other appropriate interim measures.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  Cases T-337/18 R and T-347/18 R are joined for the purpose of the present order.

                  2.

                  The applications for interim measures are dismissed.

                  3.

                  The costs are reserved.


title: Case C-542/17 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 September 2018 — Allstate Insurance Company v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — EU trade mark — Application for registration of the word mark DRIVEWISE — Dismissal of the application — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 7(1)(c) — Article 7(2) — Article 75 — Descriptive character — Neologism composed of elements each of which is descriptive of the characteristics of the goods or services concerned — Intended purpose of the goods or services — Distortion — Duty to state reasons)

text:
               5.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/14

      Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 September 2018 — Allstate Insurance Company v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
      (Case C-542/17 P) (1)

      ((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - EU trade mark - Application for registration of the word mark DRIVEWISE - Dismissal of the application - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 7(1)(c) - Article 7(2) - Article 75 - Descriptive character - Neologism composed of elements each of which is descriptive of the characteristics of the goods or services concerned - Intended purpose of the goods or services - Distortion - Duty to state reasons))
      (2018/C 399/18)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellant: Allstate Insurance Company (represented by: G. Würtenberger and R. Kunze, Rechtsanwälte)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: K. Markakis, acting as Agent)

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The appeal is dismissed as manifestly unfounded.

                  2.

                  Allstate Insurance Company shall pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2018.


title: Case T-542/18: Action brought on 17 September 2018 — Wanda Films and Wanda Visión v EUIPO — Dalian Wanda Group Co. (wanda films)

text:
               5.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/51

      Action brought on 17 September 2018 — Wanda Films and Wanda Visión v EUIPO — Dalian Wanda Group Co. (wanda films)
      (Case T-542/18)
      (2018/C 399/65)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicants: Wanda Films, SL (Pozuelo de Alarcón, Spain) and Wanda Visión, SA (Pozuelo de Alarcón) (represented by: C. Planas Silva, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Dalian Wanda Group Co. Ltd (Dalian, China)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Wanda Films, SL

         Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark wanda films — Application for registration No 13 902 994

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 July 2018 in Case R 829/2017-5

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  admit the present application, the arguments and documents (including the ones presented with this application and the ones presented by the applicant during the opposition and appeal proceedings);

                  —

                  override the contested decision;

                  —

                  issue a decision that admits the registration of the figurative trademark defended by the applicant with the present application.

         Plea in law

                  —

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


title: Case C-67/18 P: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 September 2018 — Dominique Bilde v European Parliament, Council of the European Union (Appeal — Admissibility — European Parliament — Rules governing the [payment of] expenses and allowances of Members of the European Parliament — Parliamentary assistance allowance — Recovery of sums unduly paid)

text:
               5.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/14

      Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 September 2018 — Dominique Bilde v European Parliament, Council of the European Union
      (Case C-67/18 P) (1)

      ((Appeal - Admissibility - European Parliament - Rules governing the [payment of] expenses and allowances of Members of the European Parliament - Parliamentary assistance allowance - Recovery of sums unduly paid))
      (2018/C 399/19)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Appellant: Dominique Bilde (represented by: G. Sauveur, avocat)

         Other parties to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: S. Seyr and G. Corstens, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: A.F. Jensen, M. Bauer and R. Meyer, acting as Agents)

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The appeal is dismissed as being manifestly inadmissible in part and manifestly unfounded in part.

                  2.

                  Ms Dominique Bilde shall pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 161, 7.5.2018.


title: Case T-543/18: Action brought on 17 September 2018 — XK v Commission

text:
               5.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/52

      Action brought on 17 September 2018 — XK v Commission
      (Case T-543/18)
      (2018/C 399/66)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: XK (represented by N. de Montigny, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  Declare and order that the individual decision to cease to grant reimbursement of the education costs connected with the applicant’s children as from the 2017/18 school year, put into effect for the first time via the applicant’s salary statement of November 2017, with reasons given in an email of 7 November 2017, is annulled;

                  —

                  Order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 3(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and of the general implementing provisions for the reimbursement of medical expenses, in so far as the defendant’s changed interpretation infringed acquired rights, legitimate expectations, legal certainty and the principle of sound administration.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the child, the right to family life and the right to education.

                  3.

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

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging failure effectively to weigh up interests and failure to comply with the principle of proportionality, by which the contested decision is vitiated.


title: Case C-586/18 P: Appeal brought on 19 September 2018 by Buonotourist Srl against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 11 July 2018 in Case T-185/15, Buonotourist v Commission

text:
               5.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/25

      Appeal brought on 19 September 2018 by Buonotourist Srl against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 11 July 2018 in Case T-185/15, Buonotourist v Commission
      (Case C-586/18 P)
      (2018/C 399/34)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Appellant: Buonotourist Srl (represented by: M. D’Alberti and L. Visone, avvocati)

         Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission and Associazione Nazionale Autotrasporto Viaggiatori (ANAV)

         Form of order sought

      The appellant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  set aside the judgment under appeal;

                  —

                  declare, pursuant to Articles 263 and 264 TFEU, that the decision of the European Commission of 19 January 2015 in State aid proceedings SA.35843 (2014/C) (ex 2012/NN) (in respect of EUR 1 111 572,00) is entirely null and void in so far as it finds that the sums awarded by way of compensation in respect of public service obligations within the meaning of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 (award of compensation under Article 11 in respect of tariff obligations in the Local Public Transport sector (1)) are to be held to be a non-notified measure constituting State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty which is incompatible with the internal market;

                  —

                  declare, pursuant to Articles 263 and 264 TFEU, that the decision of the European Commission of 19 January 2015 in State aid proceedings SA.35843 (2014/C) (ex 2012/NN) (in respect of EUR 1 111 572,00) is entirely void in so far as it imposes operational measures for the recovery of the aid by the Italian State;

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by Buonotourist Srl.

         Grounds of appeal and main arguments

      The appellant relies on five grounds in support of its appeal, according to which the judgment should be set aside:
      I.   First ground of appeal, alleging that the judgment under appeal is vitiated by an error of law regarding the classification of the compensation in question as ‘new aid’

      The compensation was awarded to the appellant following a declaratory judgment by the Consiglio di Stato (Council of State, Italy) in 2009 confirming the existence of the right thereto, on the basis of Regulation No 1191/69, in respect of public service tariff obligations. That judgment, given its scope, could never be construed as establishing a compensation measure, having merely served to confirm the existence of that right.
      II.   Second ground of appeal, alleging that the judgment under appeal is vitiated by an error of law regarding the statement that the Altmark conditions were not satisfied

      The classification of an economic outlay by the public authorities as compensation automatically precludes the application of the rules regarding State aid. Given the nature of compensation for public service tariff obligations, a company that has discharged those obligations cannot be considered to have gained any advantage. The appellant also analyses the Altmark judgment point by point, in order to demonstrate that the principles set out therein have all been observed.
      III.   Third ground of appeal, alleging that the judgment is vitiated by an error of law regarding the assessment that the economic measure is incompatible with the EU rules regarding State aid, and asserting that the measure is not capable of ‘[distorting] competition’

      The General Court failed to take account of the fact that the Local Public Transport market in Campania during the period relevant to the case (1996 — 2002) was, as it still is today, closed to competition, and that the concessions gave rise to an exclusive right. Accordingly, there could be no competition either ‘for the market’ or ‘in the market’.
      IV.   Fourth ground of appeal, alleging that the judgment under appeal is vitiated by an error of law regarding its confirmation that the decision of the Commission prevails over the judgment of the national court and alleging misapplication of the procedural guarantees provided for by Regulation No 659/1999 (2)
         (Regulation 2015/1589 (3)
         ) and the principle of legitimate expectations

      The General Court failed to take account of the fact that the judgment of the national court had been delivered more than five years before the Commission’s decision. Therefore, the case-law relied on by the General Court was not relevant, there being no precedents to the present case. Instead, by applying Regulation No 1191/69, the Council of State had exercised a power reserved for that court. The Commission also cannot claim any exclusive decision-making power in the present case. The long period that had elapsed between the judgment [of the national court], which had applied EU law, and the Commission’s decision had established a legitimate expectation. It cannot be claimed that the Council of State was not aware of the rules applied, but merely that the Commission interpreted them differently.
      V.   Fifth ground of appeal, alleging that the judgment is vitiated by an improper application of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 (4)
         for the purpose of assessing the compatibility of the aid with EU law and alleging a failure to state reasons

      The Commission made its decision on an incorrect legal basis as Regulation No 1370/2007 was not applicable because it entered into force after the declaratory judgment confirming the right to compensation delivered by the Council of State on the basis of Regulation No 1191/69.

         (1)  Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 of the Council of 26 June 1969 on action by Member States concerning the obligations inherent in the concept of a public service in transport by rail, road and inland waterway (OJ 1969 L 156, p. 1).

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

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

         (4)  Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on public passenger transport services by rail and by road and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 1191/69 and 1107/70 (OJ 2007 L 315, p. 1).


title: Case C-430/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 6 September 2018 — Bank Mellat v Council of the European Union, European Commission, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Appeal — Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) — Combating of nuclear proliferation — Restrictive measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran — Sector-specific measures — Restrictions on transfers of funds involving Iranian financial institutions — Strengthening of restrictions — Regime at issue adopted under the provisions of Decision 2012/635/CFSP and of Regulation (EU) No 1263/2012 — Implementation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on the Iranian nuclear issue — Lifting of all restrictive measures of the European Union related to this issue — Repeal of regime at issue in the course of proceedings before the General Court of the European Union — Effect on interest in bringing proceedings before the General Court — No continuation of interest in bringing proceedings)

text:
               5.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/3

      Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 6 September 2018 — Bank Mellat v Council of the European Union, European Commission, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
      (Case C-430/16 P) (1)

      ((Appeal - Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) - Combating of nuclear proliferation - Restrictive measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran - Sector-specific measures - Restrictions on transfers of funds involving Iranian financial institutions - Strengthening of restrictions - Regime at issue adopted under the provisions of Decision 2012/635/CFSP and of Regulation (EU) No 1263/2012 - Implementation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on the Iranian nuclear issue - Lifting of all restrictive measures of the European Union related to this issue - Repeal of regime at issue in the course of proceedings before the General Court of the European Union - Effect on interest in bringing proceedings before the General Court - No continuation of interest in bringing proceedings))
      (2018/C 399/03)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellant: Bank Mellat (represented by: M. Brindle QC and T. Otty QC, J. MacLeod and R. Blakeley, Barristers, and S. Zaiwalla and Z. Burbeza, A. Meskarian and P. Reddy, Solicitors)

         Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and I. Rodios, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: D. Gauci and J. Norris-Usher and by M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: S. Brandon, acting as Agent, and by M. Gray, Barrister)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 2 June 2016, Bank Mellat v Council (T-160/13, EU:T:2016:331);

                  2.

                  Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the action brought by Bank Mellat in Case T-160/13, seeking the annulment of Article 1, point 15, of Council Regulation (EU) No 1263/2012 of 21 December 2012 amending Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran, or of that provision in so far as it does not provide for an exception applicable in respect of Bank Mellat, and its application for a declaration by the General Court of the European Union that Article 1, point 6, of Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran is not applicable to it;

                  3.

                  Orders Bank Mellat and the Council of the European Union each to bear their own costs both in the appeal proceedings and in the proceedings at first instance;

                  4.

                  Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 371, 10.10.2016.


title: Case T-362/18 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 7 September 2018 — Robert v Conseil national de l’ordre des pharmaciens (Interim measures — Dismissal of the main action — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               5.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/36

      Order of the President of the General Court of 7 September 2018 — Robert v Conseil national de l’ordre des pharmaciens
      (Case T-362/18 R)
      ((Interim measures - Dismissal of the main action - No need to adjudicate))
      (2018/C 399/49)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Alain Robert (Le Mans, France) (represented by: J.-M. Viala, lawyer)

         Defendant: Conseil national de l’ordre des pharmaciens

         Re:

      Application based on Articles 278 and 279 TFEU, seeking suspension of the operation of the decision of the French Conseil national de l’ordre des pharmaciens of 3 October 2017, upheld by the French Conseil d’État by judgment of 7 February 2018, prohibiting the applicant from practicing as a pharmacist for one year.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  There is no need to adjudicate on the application for interim measures.

                  2.

                  Mr. Alain Robert shall bear his own costs.


title: Case T-544/18: Action brought on 13 September 2018 — ArcelorMittal Bremen v Commission

text:
               5.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/52

      Action brought on 13 September 2018 — ArcelorMittal Bremen v Commission
      (Case T-544/18)
      (2018/C 399/67)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: ArcelorMittal Bremen GmbH (Bremen, Deutschland) (represented by: S. Altenschmidt und D. Jacob, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  declare, pursuant to Article 265 TFEU, that the Commission infringed Article 52(2) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 389/2013 (1) by failing to instruct the central administrator to take into consideration the change to the national allocation table in the EUTL in respect of the applicant’s installation with EU-ID DE000000000000060;

                  —

                  alternatively, annul the decision adopted by the Commission on 31 August 2018 on the applicant’s request of 14 May 2018;

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following plea in law:
      Infringement of EU law
      The applicant submits that the Commission is obliged to adopt the decision, pursuant to Article 52(2) of Regulation No 389/2013, since the change to the national allocation table is consistent with the requirements of EU law.
      Further, the applicant submits that, in accordance with the rules laid down in Commission Decision 2011/278/EU, (2) the product-related historical activity level for sintered ore is to be determined on the basis of the quantities of sintered ore which are weighed when leaving the sinter installation.
      Finally, the applicant takes the view that sintered ore which, after its production in the context of burden preparation in a blast furnace, is rescreened and again placed in a sinter installation as recycling material, should not be deducted when determining the activity level of the sinter installation.

         (1)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 359/2013 of 2 May 2013 establishing a Union Registry pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Decisions No 280/2004/EC and No 406/2009/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Commission Regulations (EU) No 920/2010 and No 1193/2011 (OJ 2013, L 122, p. 1).

         (2)  Commission Decision 2011/278/EU of 27 April 2011 determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (notified under document C(2011) 2772) (OJ 2011, L 130, p. 1).


title: Case C-488/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 September 2018 — Bundesverband Souvenir — Geschenke — Ehrenpreise eV v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Freistaat Bayern (Appeal — EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Word mark NEUSCHWANSTEIN — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Indication of geographical origin — Distinctive character — Article 52(1)(b) — Bad faith)

text:
               5.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/4

      Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 September 2018 — Bundesverband Souvenir — Geschenke — Ehrenpreise eV v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Freistaat Bayern
      (Case C-488/16 P) (1)

      ((Appeal - EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Word mark NEUSCHWANSTEIN - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Indication of geographical origin - Distinctive character - Article 52(1)(b) - Bad faith))
      (2018/C 399/04)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Appellant: Bundesverband Souvenir — Geschenke — Ehrenpreise eV (represented by: B. Bittner, Rechtsanwalt)

         Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: D. Botis, A. Schifko and D. Walicka, acting as Agents), Freistaat Bayern (represented by: M. Müller, Rechtsanwalt)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the appeal;

                  2.

                  Orders Bundesverband Souvenir — Geschenke — Ehrenpreise eV to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 6, 9.1.2017.


title: Case T-546/18: Action brought on 17 September 2018 — XM and Others v Commission

text:
               5.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/53

      Action brought on 17 September 2018 — XM and Others v Commission
      (Case T-546/18)
      (2018/C 399/68)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicants: XM and 26 other applicants (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicants claim that the Court should:

                  —

                  Annul the decisions adversely affecting the various applicants consisting of the decisions of the appointing authority not to grant them reimbursement of school fees for the year 2017/2018, which were made in various ways according to the specific circumstances of each of the applicants:

                              —

                              either by means of an individual decision (and more specifically an email) specifically indicating the refusal of the reimbursement;

                              —

                              or by the reference to ‘processed’ in their Sysper account and considered as a rejection decision by the applicant since the subsequent salary slip, in the following month (at the earliest on the 10th with regard to the date of transmission of the salary slips) does not include any reimbursement or only a reimbursement of transport costs;

                              —

                              or by a total failure to process the application which is considered, after four months from the date of its submission, to be implicitly rejected;

                  —

                  Order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  —

                  First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 3(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of the European Union and of the general implementing provisions for the reimbursement of medical expenses, in so far as the amended interpretation by the defendant was in breach of acquired rights, legitimate expectations, legal certainty and the principle of good administration.

                  —

                  Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the child, and of the right to family life and the right to education.

                  —

                  Third plea in law, alleging breach of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination,

                  —

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by a failure to effectively weigh up the interests of the applicants and a failure to comply with the principle of proportionality.


title: Case T-504/18 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 11 September 2018 — XG v Commission (Interim measures — Refusal to grant access to the Commission’s premises — Application for interim measures — No interest in obtaining the interim measures sought)

text:
               5.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/37

      Order of the President of the General Court of 11 September 2018 — XG v Commission
      (Case T-504/18 R)
      ((Interim measures - Refusal to grant access to the Commission’s premises - Application for interim measures - No interest in obtaining the interim measures sought))
      (2018/C 399/51)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: XG (represented by: S. Kaisergruber and A. Burghelle-Vernet, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Van Nuffel and T. Bohr, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application on the basis of Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking, first, suspension of the operation of the Commission’s decision of 2 July 2018 confirming its refusal to allow access to its premises and, secondly, an order that the Commission provisionally grant access to its premises.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The application for interim measures is dismissed.

                  2.

                  The costs are reserved.


title: Case C-591/18 P: Appeal brought on 21 September 2018 by Brugg Kabel AG and Kabelwerke Brugg AG Holding against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 12 July 2018 in Case T-441/14 Brugg Kabel AG and Kabelwerke Brugg AG Holding v European Commission

text:
               5.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/28

      Appeal brought on 21 September 2018 by Brugg Kabel AG and Kabelwerke Brugg AG Holding against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 12 July 2018 in Case T-441/14 Brugg Kabel AG and Kabelwerke Brugg AG Holding v European Commission
      (Case C-591/18 P)
      (2018/C 399/36)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Appellants: Brugg Kabel AG and Kabelwerke Brugg AG Holding (represented by: A. Rinne and M. Lichtenegger, Rechtsanwälte)

         Other party: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The appellants claim that the Court should:

                  —

                  set aside the judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 in Case T-441/14 and annul the decision of the respondent of 2 April 2014 (Case AT.39610 — Power Cables) insofar as it relates to the appellants;

                  —

                  in the alternative, set aside the judgment of the General Court referred to in first point and annul the decision of the respondent referred to in the first point insofar as:

                              —

                              the fine against the appellants is set at EUR 8 490 000, and

                              —

                              the appellants are ordered to pay the costs

                        and reduce the fine in accordance with the submissions made by the appellant at first instance as the General Court sees fit;

                  —

                  in the further alternative, set aside the judgment of the General Court referred to in the first point and refer the case back to the General Court;

                  —

                  order the respondent to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support if its appeal, the appellants rely on six grounds of appeal.
      First ground of appeal: infringement of the rights of the defence through communication in English of the request for information and the objections
      With regard to the language versions of the request for information and of the statement of objections made available to the appellants, the General Court wrongfully concluded that an excessively low degree of comprehension was sufficient. The proper choice of a language version that is understood by the relevant addressee should allow him to comprehend the claims made against him so that he is fully able to put together a comprehensive defence. It is not enough merely ‘sufficiently’ to be able to understand the nature and extent of the claims, in order ‘usefully to adopt a position’.
      Further, the General Court failed to recognise that, in that respect, the usefulness of the replies for the Commission is irrelevant; what is relevant is only whether the affected undertaking was in a position, despite the Commission’s refusal to make another language version available, fully to defend itself against those claims.
      Second ground of appeal: infringement of the rights of the defence by refusing access to the observations of other undertakings in respect of the objections
      The General Court set excessively strict standards as to the requirements for the granting to an affected undertaking of access to the non-confidential replies of other addressees to the statement of objections. An addressee of the statement of objections should be granted access when the affected undertaking shows that, with respect to those claims, there are plausible circumstances in the overall proceedings that therefore make it appear entirely possible that there are exculpatory passages or annexes among the non-confidential replies of another addressee of the statement of objections.
      The General Court failed to recognise that it was an infringement of the principles of the rule of law to allow only the Commission to review the replies of other addressees of the statement of objections for (potentially) exculpatory passages or annexes. In that respect, the Commission was acting simultaneously as an investigative/enforcement body, a decision-making body and also as a defence body in the same action, without having the ability to recognise the necessary factual connections.
      Third ground of appeal: infringement of the principle of the presumption of innocence by the establishment of the date of commencement of participation in the infringement as 14 December 2001
      The General Court applied an insufficiently low standard of proof with regard to the evidence for the commencement of participation in a single and lasting infringement. The Commission should have provided precise, convincing and unanimous evidence justifying its firm belief that the date chosen was the start-date for the participation in the infringement of the competition rules. If the General Court had still had doubts, the benefit of those doubts should have been given to the affected undertaking, in accordance with the principle of in dubio pro reo.
      The General Court failed to recognise that, for the purposes of rebutting circumstantial evidence, it is sufficient to undermine such evidence with contrary circumstantial evidence. In the interests of the equality of arms, an affected party cannot be required to produce entirely exculpatory evidence in administrative proceedings for the imposition of penalties.
      Fourth ground of appeal: distortion of evidence and infringement of the presumption of innocence by the acceptance of uninterrupted participation in the infringement between 12 May 2005 and 8 December 2005
      The General Court distorted the evidence relating to the establishment of the uninterrupted participation by the appellants in the infringement when, despite the range of circumstantial evidence provided being contradictory and inconsistent, it arrived at the certain and doubtless conviction that the infringement was continued and uninterrupted.
      In that regard, the General Court also failed to recognise the appropriate standard for the rebuttal of circumstantial evidence.
      Fifth ground of appeal: Distortion of evidence, infringement of the presumption of innocence and infringement of the principle of proportionality by the establishment of liability on the basis of agreements relating to submarine power cables, home markets and high-volume projects
      The General Court applied an insufficiently low standard of proof and distorted the evidence with regard to the appellants’ liability for independent and separable parts of the infringement — such as, for example, submarine cables, home markets and high-volume projects — in which the appellants neither participated nor had an interest.
      The General Court ignored the disproportionate and inappropriate risks associated with such a broad interpretation of the legal concept of a single and continuing infringement for undertakings that have not taken part in all parts, but that may nonetheless be jointly liable under national law for the harm caused.
      Given the current status of the harmonisation of the law of compensation at an EU-level, the recourse to parties who are also jointly liable on a national level is not an appropriate tool sufficiently to compensate the broad liability to third parties.
      Sixth ground of appeal: infringement of Article 23(2) and (3) of Regulation 1/2003 (1) and the principles of legality, proportionality and ne bis in idem when setting the fine
      The General Court wrongly established 2004 as a reference year for the value of sales which was neither representative of the appellants, nor illustrative of their genuine size or economic power.
      Further, the General Court failed to recognise that, first, the Commission could not rely, for the purposes of justifying liability, on a single and continuing infringement — that is to say, a single cartel — that covered both the A/R configuration and the R-configuration and, second, for the purposes of setting the fine, it was unable artificially to divide again the numerous and supposedly indivisible parts of the infringement.

         (1)  OJ L 1, 4.1.2003, p. 1.


title: Case T-490/18: Action brought on 16 August 2018 — Neda Industrial Group/Council

text:
               5.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/38

      Action brought on 16 August 2018 — Neda Industrial Group/Council
      (Case T-490/18)
      (2018/C 399/52)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Neda Industrial Group (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: L. Vidal, lawyer)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  cancel the decision taken by the Council of the European Union on 6 June 2018 to maintain the sanctions against the applicant; and

                  —

                  order the Council to pay all of the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The present action seeks the annulment of the Council’s decision of 6 June 2018 to maintain the applicant on the list of persons and entities set out in Annex II to Decision 2010/413/CFSP (1) and Annex IX to Regulation No 267/2012 (2).
      In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is unlawful due to an error of law.

                              —

                              In this regard, the applicant submits that the Council fails to demonstrate that the applicant provides an intentional support for Iran’s proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities, which allegedly is the legal ground for the applicant’s enlisting in Annex IX of Regulation No 267/2012.

                              —

                              The applicant further claims that the lack of communication of any supporting evidence by the Council to the applicant constitutes a violation of the principle of effective judicial protection.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is unlawful due to an error of fact.

                              —

                              In this regard, the applicant submits that considering its activities and the services it provides, it is unrelated to sanctioned entities or to any nuclear activities whatsoever.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is unlawful because it infringes the general principle of proportionality.

                              —

                              In this regard, the applicant claims that its inclusion in the list of entities subject to restrictive measures and the refusal to withdraw the applicant from that list are neither appropriate nor necessary to reach the objectives pursued by Regulation No 267/2012, and have caused disproportionate damages to the applicant.

         (1)  Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ L 195, 27.7.2010, p. 39).

         (2)  Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ L 88, 24.3.2012, p. 1).


title: Case T-556/18: Action brought on 19 September 2018 — Sensient Colors Europe v Commission

text:
               5.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/54

      Action brought on 19 September 2018 — Sensient Colors Europe v Commission
      (Case T-556/18)
      (2018/C 399/69)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Sensient Colors Europe GmbH (Geesthacht, Germany) (represented by: M. Hagenmeyer, D. Zechmeister und W. Berlit, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  declare as null and void the defendant’s decision of 31 July 2018 (DG Sante/E2/RP/amf(2018)4523972) to classify as invalid the request to place a novel food on the Union market as well as the update of the Union list provided for in Article 9 of Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) with document number NF 2018/0355, and end the application procedure; and

                  —

                  order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, namely infringement of Article 6(1) and 6(5) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2469, (2) and Article 10(1) in conjunction with Article 10(3) and Article 11(1) or in conjunction with Article 12(2) of Regulation 2015/2283.
      It submits, inter alia, that the defendant incorrectly assumed that the colouring extract based on dried butterfly pea flowers, on which the application is based, did not fall within the scope of Regulation 2015/2283 and was a food additive within the meaning of Article 3(2)(a) of Regulation No 1333/2008.

         (1)  Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on novel foods, amending Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1852/2001 (OJ 2015, L 327, p. 1).

         (2)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2469 of 20 December 2017 laying down administrative and scientific requirements for applications referred to in Article 10 of Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 of the European Parliament and of the Council on novel food (OJ 2017, L 351, p. 64).


title: Case T-505/18: Action brought on 24 August 2018 — Hungary v Commission

text:
               5.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/39

      Action brought on 24 August 2018 — Hungary v Commission
      (Case T-505/18)
      (2018/C 399/53)
      Language of the case: Hungarian

         Parties

         Applicant: Hungary (represented by: M.Z. Fehér, M.M. Tátrai and A. Pokoraczki, acting as Agents)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  Annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/873 of 13 June 2018 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), in the part concerning Hungary which excludes from EU financing the aid granted to producer groups which have qualified recognition;

                  —

                  Order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging that the contested exclusion to which the contested decision refers is unlawful, since the aid given to the producer groups affected was granted in accordance with EU law.
                  The applicant relies on the nature of the recognition of producer groups. It takes the view that, in deciding on the reimbursement of the national financial aid granted to those producer groups, the Commission failed to take into account the fact that the producer groups that have been given qualified recognition meet the requirements under Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging that the contested exclusion to which the contested decision refers is unlawful since, by virtue of the principles of sincere cooperation, proportionality, legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations, the exclusion ought to have been reduced or omitted.
                  According to the applicant, the contested exclusion is unlawful since, by virtue of the principles of sincere cooperation, proportionality, legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations, the exclusion ought to have been attenuated or omitted, since the rules of EU law applicable in relation to the assessment of the contested national law and practice are not absolutely clear –– thereby making the interpretation put forward by Hungary possible –– and given that the Commission was already aware of that national law and practice and failed to raise any objection in that respect.


title: Case T-557/18: Action brought on 20 September 2018 — LG Electronics v EUIPO — Beko (BECON)

text:
               5.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/55

      Action brought on 20 September 2018 — LG Electronics v EUIPO — Beko (BECON)
      (Case T-557/18)
      (2018/C 399/70)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: LG Electronics, Inc. (Seoul, South Korea) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Beko plc (Watford, United Kingdom)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

         Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark BECON — Application for registration No 13 142 336

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 July 2018 in Case R 41/2018-5

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision as far as the appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division was dismissed;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay the costs.

         Plea in law

                  —

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


title: Case C-527/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Salzburger Gebietskrankenkasse, Bundesminister für Arbeit, Soziales und Konsumentenschutz (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social security — Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 — Articles 5 and 19(2) — Workers posted in a Member State other than that in which the employer usually carries out its activities — Issue of the A1 attestations by the Member State of origin after recognition by the host Member State that the workers are subject to its social security scheme — Opinion of the Administrative Board — Incorrect issue of A1 certificates — Finding — Binding nature and retroactive effect of those certificates — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Legislation applicable — Article 12(1) — Concept of a person ‘sent to replace another person’)

text:
               5.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/4

      Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Salzburger Gebietskrankenkasse, Bundesminister für Arbeit, Soziales und Konsumentenschutz
      (Case C-527/16) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security - Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 - Articles 5 and 19(2) - Workers posted in a Member State other than that in which the employer usually carries out its activities - Issue of the A1 attestations by the Member State of origin after recognition by the host Member State that the workers are subject to its social security scheme - Opinion of the Administrative Board - Incorrect issue of A1 certificates - Finding - Binding nature and retroactive effect of those certificates - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Legislation applicable - Article 12(1) - Concept of a person ‘sent to replace another person’))
      (2018/C 399/05)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Verwaltungsgerichtshof

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: Salzburger Gebietskrankenkasse, Bundesminister für Arbeit, Soziales und Konsumentenschutz

         Interveners: Alpenrind GmbH, Martin-Meat Szolgáltató és Kereskedelmi Kft, Martimpex-Meat Kft, Pensionsversicherungsanstalt, Allgemeine Unfallversicherungsanstalt

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Article 5(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, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1244/2010 of 9 December 2010, read together with Article 19(2) of Regulation No 987/2009, as amended by Regulation No 1244/2010, must be interpreted as meaning that an A1 certificate, issued by the competent institution of a Member State under Article 12(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, as amended by Regulation No 1244/2010, binds not only the institutions of the Member State in which the activity is carried out, but also the courts of that Member State.

                  2.

                  Article 5(1) of Regulation No 987/2009, as amended by Regulation No 1244/2010, read together with Article 19(2) of Regulation No 987/2009, as amended by Regulation No 1244/2010, must be interpreted as meaning that an A1 certificate issued by the competent institution of a Member State under Article 12(1) of Regulation No 883/2004, as amended by Regulation No 1244/2010, is binding on both the social security institutions of the Member State in which the activity is carried out and the courts of that Member State so long as the certificate has not been withdrawn or declared invalid by the Member State in which was issued, even though the competent authorities of the latter Member State and the Member State in which the activity is carried out have brought the matter before the Administrative Commission for the Coordination of Social Security Systems which held that that certificate was incorrectly issued and should be withdrawn.
                  Article 5(1) of Regulation No 987/2009, as amended by Regulation No 1244/2010, read together with Article 19(2) thereof, as amended by Regulation No 1244/2010, must be interpreted as meaning that an A1 certificate issued by the competent institution of a Member State under Article 12(1) of Regulation No 883/2004, as amended by Regulation No 1244/2010, binds both social security institutions of the Member State in which the activity is carried out and the courts of that Member State, if appropriate with retroactive effect, even though that certificate was issued only after that Member State determined that the worker concerned was subject to compulsory insurance under its legislation.

                  3.

                  Article 12(1) of Regulation No 883/2004, as amended by Regulation No 1244/2010, must be interpreted as meaning that, if a worker who is posted by his employer to carry out work in another Member State is replaced by another worker posted by another employer, the latter employee must be regarded as being ‘sent to replace another person’, within the meaning of that provision, so that he cannot benefit from the special rules laid down in that provision in order to remain subject to the legislation of the Member State in which his employer normally carries out its activities.
                  The fact that the employers of the two workers concerned have their registered offices in the same Member State or that they may have personal or organisational links is irrelevant in that respect.

         (1)  OJ C 14, 16.1.2017.


title: Case C-186/17: Order of the President of the Third Chamber of the Court of 2 August 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Berlin — Germany) — flightright GmbH v Iberia Express SA

text:
               5.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/30

      Order of the President of the Third Chamber of the Court of 2 August 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Berlin — Germany) — flightright GmbH v Iberia Express SA
      (Case C-186/17) (1)

      (2018/C 399/37)
      Language of the case: German
      The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 221, 10.7.2017.


title: Case C-4/17 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 September 2018 — Czech Republic v European Commission (Appeal — European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) — Expenditure eligible for European Union financing — Expenditure by the Czech Republic — Regulation (EC) No 479/2008 — Article 11(3) — Concept of ‘restructuring of vineyards’)

text:
               5.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/6

      Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 September 2018 — Czech Republic v European Commission
      (Case C-4/17 P) (1)

      ((Appeal - European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) - Expenditure eligible for European Union financing - Expenditure by the Czech Republic - Regulation (EC) No 479/2008 - Article 11(3) - Concept of ‘restructuring of vineyards’))
      (2018/C 399/06)
      Language of the case: Czech

         Parties

         Appellant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Pavliš and J. Vláčil, acting as Agents)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: P. Ondrůšek and B. Eggers, acting as Agents)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 20 October 2016, Czech Republic v Commission (T-141/15, not published, EU:T:2016:621);

                  2.

                  Annuls Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/103 of 16 January 2015 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), in so far as it excludes expenditure by the Czech Republic under the EAGF on the measure to protect vineyards against damage caused by animals and birds for 2010 to 2012 in the total amount of EUR 2 123 199,04;

                  3.

                  Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Czech Republic both in the proceedings at first instance and on the present appeal.

         (1)  OJ C 63, 27.2.2017.


title: Case C-212/17: Order of the President of the Court of 21 August 2018 (request for a preliminary decision from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia — Spain) — Simón Rodríguez Otero v Televisión de Galicia SA, Ministerio Fiscal

text:
               5.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/30

      Order of the President of the Court of 21 August 2018 (request for a preliminary decision from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia — Spain) — Simón Rodríguez Otero v Televisión de Galicia SA, Ministerio Fiscal
      (Case C-212/17) (1)

      (2018/C 399/38)
      Language of the case: Spanish
      The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 231, 17.7.2017.


title: Case T-559/18: Action brought on 13 September 2018 — Atos Medical v EUIPO — Andreas Fahl Medizintechnik-Vertrieb (medical plasters)

text:
               5.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/55

      Action brought on 13 September 2018 — Atos Medical v EUIPO — Andreas Fahl Medizintechnik-Vertrieb (medical plasters)
      (Case T-559/18)
      (2018/C 399/71)
      Language in which the application was lodged: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Atos Medical GmbH (Troisdorf, Germany) (represented by: K. Middelhoff, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Andreas Fahl Medizintechnik-Vertrieb GmbH (Cologne, Germany)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

         Design at issue: Community design No 1339246-0009

         Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 June 2018 in Case R 2215/2016-3

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay the costs,

            Should the other party intervene in the proceedings, the applicant further claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  order the other party to bear its own costs.

         Pleas in law

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 4(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;

                  —

                  Infringement of Articles 5 and 6 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 25(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002.


title: Case C-84/18 P: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 September 2018 — Sophie Montel v European Parliament, Council of the European Union (Appeal — Admissibility — European Parliament — Rules governing the [payment of] expenses and allowances of Members of the European Parliament — Parliamentary assistance allowance — Recovery of sums unduly paid)

text:
               5.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/15

      Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 September 2018 — Sophie Montel v European Parliament, Council of the European Union
      (Case C-84/18 P) (1)

      ((Appeal - Admissibility - European Parliament - Rules governing the [payment of] expenses and allowances of Members of the European Parliament - Parliamentary assistance allowance - Recovery of sums unduly paid))
      (2018/C 399/20)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Appellant: Sophie Montel (represented by: G. Sauveur, avocat)

         Other parties to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: S. Seyr and G. Corstens, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: A.F. Jensen, M. Bauer and R. Meyer, acting as Agents)

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The appeal is dismissed as being manifestly inadmissible in part and manifestly unfounded in part.

                  2.

                  Ms Sophie Montel shall pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 161, 7.5.2018.


title: Case C-594/17: Order of the President of the Court of 2 August 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia, supported by: Kingdom of Belgium, Federal Republic of Germany, Republic of Estonia, Kingdom of Spain, French Republic, Italian Republic

text:
               5.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/30

      Order of the President of the Court of 2 August 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia, supported by: Kingdom of Belgium, Federal Republic of Germany, Republic of Estonia, Kingdom of Spain, French Republic, Italian Republic
      (Case C-594/17) (1)

      (2018/C 399/39)
      Language of the case: Slovene
      The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 412, 4.12.2017.


title: Case C-90/18: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 6 September 2018 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Visoki upravni sud — Croatia) — Hrvatska banka za obnovu i razvitak (HBOR) v Povjerenik za informiranje Republike Hrvatske (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Lack of sufficient information concerning the factual and regulatory context of the dispute in the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need for a reply to the questions referred — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               5.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/15

      Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 6 September 2018 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Visoki upravni sud — Croatia) — Hrvatska banka za obnovu i razvitak (HBOR) v Povjerenik za informiranje Republike Hrvatske
      (Case C-90/18) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Lack of sufficient information concerning the factual and regulatory context of the dispute in the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need for a reply to the questions referred - Manifest inadmissibility))
      (2018/C 399/21)
      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

         Intervener: Hrvoje Šimić

         Operative part of the order

      The request for a preliminary ruling from the Visoki upravni sud (Administrative Court of Appeal, Croatia), by decision of 1 February 2018, is manifestly inadmissible.

         (1)  OJ C 134, 16.4.2018


title: Case T-560/18: Action brought on 13 September 2018 — Atos Medical v EUIPO — Andreas Fahl Medizintechnik-Vertrieb (medical plasters)

text:
               5.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/56

      Action brought on 13 September 2018 — Atos Medical v EUIPO — Andreas Fahl Medizintechnik-Vertrieb (medical plasters)
      (Case T-560/18)
      (2018/C 399/72)
      Language in which the application was lodged: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Atos Medical GmbH (Troisdorf, Germany) (represented by: K. Middelhoff, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Andreas Fahl Medizintechnik-Vertrieb GmbH (Cologne, Germany)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

         Design at issue: Community design No 1339246-0004

         Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 June 2018 in Case R 2216/2016-3

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay the costs,

            Should the other party intervene in the proceedings, the applicant further claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  order the other party to bear its own costs.

         Pleas in law

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 4(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;

                  —

                  Infringement of Articles 5 and 6 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 25(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002.


title: Case C-17/17: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal — United Kingdom) — Grenville Hampshire v The Board of the Pension Protection Fund (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer — Directive 2008/94/EC — Article 8 — Supplementary pension schemes — Protection of entitlement to old-age benefits — Minimum level of protection guaranteed)

text:
               5.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/6

      Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal — United Kingdom) — Grenville Hampshire v The Board of the Pension Protection Fund
      (Case C-17/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer - Directive 2008/94/EC - Article 8 - Supplementary pension schemes - Protection of entitlement to old-age benefits - Minimum level of protection guaranteed))
      (2018/C 399/07)
      Language of the case: English

         Referring court

      Court of Appeal

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: Grenville Hampshire

         Respondent: The Board of the Pension Protection Fund

         Interested party: Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Article 8 of Directive 2008/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer must be interpreted as meaning that every individual employee must receive old-age benefits corresponding to at least 50 % of the value of his accrued entitlement under a supplementary occupational pension scheme in the event of his employer’s insolvency.

                  2.

                  In circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, Article 8 of Directive 2008/94 has direct effect and may, therefore, be invoked before a national court by an individual employee in order to challenge a decision of a body such as the Board of the Pension Protection Fund.

         (1)  OJ C 78, 13.3.2017.


title: Case T-509/18: Action brought on 24 August 2018 — Czech Republic v European Commission

text:
               5.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/39

      Action brought on 24 August 2018 — Czech Republic v European Commission
      (Case T-509/18)
      (2018/C 399/54)
      Language of the case: Czech

         Parties

         Applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Pavliš, O. Serdula and J. Vláčil, acting as Agents)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/873 of 13 June 2018 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) in so far as it excludes expenditure of a total of EUR 151 116,65 incurred by the Czech Republic, and

                  —

                  order the European Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law: infringement of Article 52(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy (‘Regulation No 1306/2013’). The Commission incorrectly considers that the time between visits of the control bodies to an agricultural undertaking may not exceed the time laid down in Article 25 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 809/2014 of 17 July 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation No 1306/2013 with regard to the integrated administration and control system, rural development measures and cross compliance (‘Regulation No 809/2014’).

                  2.

                  Second plea in law: infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations. Even if there was an infringement of Regulation No 809/2014 in this case (quod non), the Czech Republic was entitled to have the legitimate expectation that its system of checks was consistent with EU law on the basis of the Commission’s conclusion from the previous audit accepting that on-the-spot checks in the Czech Republic were carried out in accordance with EU law.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law: infringement of Article 52(1) and (2) of Regulation No 1306/2013. Even if there was an infringement of Regulation No 809/2014 on the part of the Czech Republic in this case (quod non), the Commission also included in the calculation of the financial correction the resources paid to agricultural undertakings for which there was demonstrably no infringement of Regulation No 809/2014 in the on-the-spot checks. The Commission thus also imposed a financial correction with respect to expenditure which could not be regarded as unjustifiably incurred and from which there was no risk to the EU funds.


title: Case C-184/18: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 6 September 2018 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Central Administrativo Sul — Portugal) — Fazenda Pública v Carlos Manuel Patrício Teixeira, Maria Madalena da Silva Moreira Patrício Teixeira (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Direct taxation — Article 18 TFEU — Principle of non-discrimination — Articles 63, 64 and 65 TFEU — Free movement of capital — Higher tax burden on capital gains on immoveable property realised by non-residents — Restrictions on the free movement of capital to or from a third country)

text:
               5.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/16

      Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 6 September 2018 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Central Administrativo Sul — Portugal) — Fazenda Pública v Carlos Manuel Patrício Teixeira, Maria Madalena da Silva Moreira Patrício Teixeira
      (Case C-184/18) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Direct taxation - Article 18 TFEU - Principle of non-discrimination - Articles 63, 64 and 65 TFEU - Free movement of capital - Higher tax burden on capital gains on immoveable property realised by non-residents - Restrictions on the free movement of capital to or from a third country))
      (2018/C 399/22)
      Language of the case: Portuguese

         Referring court

      Tribunal Central Administrativo Sul

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Fazenda Pública

         Defendants: Carlos Manuel Patrício Teixeira, Maria Madalena da Silva Moreira Patrício Teixeira

         Operative part of the order

      Legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which subjects capital gains resulting from the transfer, by a resident of a third country, of immovable property situated in that Member State to a tax burden greater than that which would be applicable for the same type of transaction to capital gains realised by a resident of that Member State constitutes a restriction on the free movement of capital which, subject to verification by the referring court, does not fall within the exception provided for in Article 64(1) TFEU and cannot be justified by the reasons referred to in Article 65(1) TFEU.

         (1)  OJ C 182, 28.5.2018