title: Case C-354/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Svea Hovrätt, Patent- och marknadsöverdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 3 May 2019 — Novartis AG v Patent-och registreringsverket

text:
               8.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 230/23

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Svea Hovrätt, Patent- och marknadsöverdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 3 May 2019 — Novartis AG v Patent-och registreringsverket
      (Case C-354/19)
      (2019/C 230/28)
      Language of the case: Swedish

         Referring court

      Svea Hovrätt, Patent- och marknadsöverdomstolen

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: Novartis AG

         Other party: Patent-och registreringsverket

         Question referred

      In view of the fundamental purpose which the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products is intended to fulfil, namely that of stimulating pharmaceutical research in the European Union, does Article 3(c) of Regulation No 469/2009, (1) having regard to Article 3(2) of Regulation No 1610/96, preclude an applicant who has previously been granted a supplementary protection certificate in respect of a product protected by a basic patent, in force in respect of the product per se, from being granted a supplementary protection certificate for a new use of the product in a case such as that at issue in the main proceedings in which the new use constitutes a new therapeutic indication which is specifically protected by a new basic patent?

         (1)  Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products (OJ 2009 L 152, p. 1).


title: Case C-390/19 P: Appeal brought on 17 May 2019 by the Italian Republic against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 12 March 2019 in Case T-135/15 Italy v Commission

text:
               8.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 230/24

      Appeal brought on 17 May 2019 by the Italian Republic against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 12 March 2019 in Case T-135/15 Italy v Commission
      (Case C-390/19 P)
      (2019/C 230/29)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Appellant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, C. Colelli, avvocato dello Stato)

         Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, French Republic, Hungary

         Form of order sought

      The appellant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  set aside, in so far as it is the subject matter of the present appeal, the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 12 March 2019, Case T-135/15, Italy v Commission, notified on 13 March 2019, dismissing the action brought under Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union by the Italian Republic against 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) (notified under document C(2015) 53); (1)

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Grounds of appeal and main arguments

                  (1)

                  Infringement of Regulations No 320/2006 and No 968/2006. Infringement of Judgment of the Court of Justice of 14 November 2013, SFIR and Others, C-187/12 to C-189/12
                  By its first ground of appeal, the appellant takes issue with the judgment under appeal in so far as it wrongly identified the time at which it was necessary to examine whether the silos kept in the sugar-beet factories receiving aid did or did not have the characteristics of a ‘production facility’ and whether or not it was lawful to maintain them in cases in which applications for financial aid had been made for the total dismantling of the facilities.

                  (2)

                  Infringement of the Commission’s Guidelines set out in Document No VI/5330/97
                  By its second ground of appeal, the appellant criticises the contested decision in so far as the General Court — despite having found that the case in question satisfied both the conditions set out in Annex 2 to the Guidelines for the purpose of establishing one of the ‘borderline cases’, which the EU legislature considered relevant for the purpose of excluding or reducing the financial correction — considered the Commission’s decision not to apply the ‘borderline case’ to be lawful.

         (1)  OJ 2015 L 16, p. 33.


title: Case T-604/15: Judgment of the General Court of 22 May 2019 — Ertico — ITS Europe v Commission (Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities — Recommendation 2003/361/EC — Decision of the Commission’s Validation Panel on qualification as a micro, small and medium-sized business — Request for review under sections 1.2.6 and 1.2.7 of the Annex to Decision 2012/838/EU, Euratom — No administrative appeal within the meaning of Article 22 of Regulation (EC) No 58/2003 — Rights of the defence — Principle of sound administration — Legal certainty — Legitimate expectations — Res judicata — Criteria for the definition of micro, small and medium-sized businesses in EU policies — Concept of an ‘enterprise’ — Concept of an ‘economic activity’ — Criterion of independence — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               8.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 230/25

      Judgment of the General Court of 22 May 2019 — Ertico — ITS Europe v Commission
      (Case T-604/15) (1)

      (Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities - Recommendation 2003/361/EC - Decision of the Commission’s Validation Panel on qualification as a micro, small and medium-sized business - Request for review under sections 1.2.6 and 1.2.7 of the Annex to Decision 2012/838/EU, Euratom - No administrative appeal within the meaning of Article 22 of Regulation (EC) No 58/2003 - Rights of the defence - Principle of sound administration - Legal certainty - Legitimate expectations - Res judicata - Criteria for the definition of micro, small and medium-sized businesses in EU policies - Concept of an ‘enterprise’ - Concept of an ‘economic activity’ - Criterion of independence - Obligation to state reasons)
      (2019/C 230/30)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: European Road Transport Telematics Implementation Coordination Organisation — Intelligent Transport Systems & Services Europe (Ertico — ITS Europe) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Wellinger and K. T’Syen, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially, R. Lyal and M. Clausen and, subsequently, R. Lyal and A. Kyratsou, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the Validation Panel of 18 August 2015 provided for under section 1.2.7 of the Annex to Commission Decision 2012/838/EU, Euratom of 18 December 2012 on the adoption of the Rules to ensure consistent verification of the existence and legal status of participants, as well as their operational and financial capacities, in indirect actions supported through the form of a grant under the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities and under the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community for nuclear research and training activities (OJ 2012 L 359, p. 45), in so far as that decision concludes that the applicant does not qualify as a micro, small or medium-sized enterprise within the meaning of Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (OJ 2003 L 124, p. 36).

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders European Road Transport Telematics Implementation Coordination Organisation — Intelligent Transport Systems & Services Europe (Ertico — ITS Europe) to bear one half of its costs;

                  3.

                     Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and pay one half of the costs incurred by Ertico — ITS Europe.

         (1)  OJ C 414, 14.12.2015.


title: Case T-197/16: Judgment of the General Court of 22 May 2019 — Andrea Incontri v EUIPO — Higicol (ANDREA INCONTRI) (European Union trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the European Union word mark ANDREA INCONTRI — Earlier European Union word mark ANDREIA — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Distinctive character of a first name and a surname — Power to alter decisions)

text:
               8.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 230/26

      Judgment of the General Court of 22 May 2019 — Andrea Incontri v EUIPO — Higicol (ANDREA INCONTRI)
      (Case T-197/16) (1)

      (European Union trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the European Union word mark ANDREA INCONTRI - Earlier European Union word mark ANDREIA - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Distinctive character of a first name and a surname - Power to alter decisions)
      (2019/C 230/31)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Andrea Incontri Srl (Milan, Italy) (represented by: A. Perani and J. Graffer, lawyers)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Higicol, SA (Baguim do monte, Portugal) (represented by: Á. Pinho and J.M. Pimenta, lawyers)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 February 2016 (Case R 146/2015-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Higicol and Andrea Incontri.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 25 February 2016 (Case R 146/2015-4);

                  2.

                     Orders EUIPO, in addition to bearing its own costs, to pay half of the costs incurred by Andrea Incontri Srl, including the costs which the latter necessarily incurred for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO;

                  3.

                     Orders Higicol, SA, in addition to bearing its own costs, to pay half of the costs incurred by Andrea Incontri Srl, including the costs which the latter necessarily incurred for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

         (1)  OJ C 243, 4.7.2016.


title: Case C-744/18 P: Appeal brought on 29 November 2018 by Volkswagen AG against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 19 September 2018 in Case T-623/16, Volkswagen AG v EUIPO

text:
               15.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 238/3

      Appeal brought on 29 November 2018 by Volkswagen AG against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 19 September 2018 in Case T-623/16, Volkswagen AG v EUIPO
      (Case C-744/18 P)
      (2019/C 238/03)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Appellant: Volkswagen AG (represented by: F. Thiering and L. Steidle, Rechtsanwälte)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
      By order of 21 May 2019, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Seventh Chamber) dismissed the appeal as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.


title: Case C-653/17 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 May 2019 — VM Vermögens-Management GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), DAT Vermögensmanagement GmbH (Appeal — EU trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Regulation (EU) 2015/2424 — Invalidity proceedings — Word mark Vermögensmanufaktur — Declaration of invalidity — Right to a fair hearing — Examination of the facts by EUIPO of its own motion — Retrospectivity — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Statement of reasons for judgments)

text:
               29.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 255/5

      Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 May 2019 — VM Vermögens-Management GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), DAT Vermögensmanagement GmbH
      (Case C-653/17 P) (1)

      (Appeal - EU trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Regulation (EU) 2015/2424 - Invalidity proceedings - Word mark Vermögensmanufaktur - Declaration of invalidity - Right to a fair hearing - Examination of the facts by EUIPO of its own motion - Retrospectivity - Jurisdiction of the General Court - Statement of reasons for judgments)
      (2019/C 255/06)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Appellant: VM Vermögens-Management GmbH (represented by: T. Dolde and P. Homann, Rechtsanwälte)

         Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: S. Hanne, acting as Agent), DAT Vermögensmanagement GmbH

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the appeal;

                  2.

                  Orders VM Vermögens-Management GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

         (1)  OJ C 94, 12.3.2018.


title: Case C-204/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 16 May 2019 — Asociación de la pesca y acuicultura del entorno de Doñana y del Bajo Guadalquívir (Pebagua) v European Commission (Appeal — Environment — Prevention and management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species — Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014 — Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1141 — Adoption of a list of invasive alien species of Union concern — Inclusion of the species Procambarus clarkii)

text:
               29.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 255/12

      Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 16 May 2019 — Asociación de la pesca y acuicultura del entorno de Doñana y del Bajo Guadalquívir (Pebagua) v European Commission
      (Case C-204/18 P) (1)

      (Appeal - Environment - Prevention and management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species - Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014 - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1141 - Adoption of a list of invasive alien species of Union concern - Inclusion of the species Procambarus clarkii)
      (2019/C 255/15)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Appellant: Asociación de la pesca y acuicultura del entorno de Doñana y del Bajo Guadalquívir (Pebagua) (represented by: A. Uceda Sosa, abogado)

         Other party: European Commission (represented by: P. Němečková and C. Hermes, acting as Agents)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the appeal;

                  2.

                  Orders the Asociación de la pesca y acuicultura del entorno de Doñana y del Bajo Guadalquívir (Pebagua) to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 268, 30.7.2018.


title: Case T-376/19: Action brought on 24 June 2019 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Big Bang (LTC latiendaencasa.es BIG BANG DAY)

text:
               5.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 263/72

      Action brought on 24 June 2019 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Big Bang (LTC latiendaencasa.es BIG BANG DAY)
      (Case T-376/19)
      (2019/C 263/77)
      Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

         Parties

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

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Big Bang, trgovina in storitve, d.o.o. (Ljubljana, Slovenia)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

         Trade mark at issue: Application for the EU figurative mark LTC latiendaencasa.es BIG BANG DAY — Application for registration No 15 879 323

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 April 2019 in Case R 1684/2018-5

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  Uphold the present action for annulment and, accordingly, annul the contested decision, which dismissed the applicant’s appeal and confirmed the decision of the Opposition Division (opposition B 2 840 414) by which EU trade mark No 15 879 323 was refused only in respect of the goods and services in the Classes to which the opposition related (7, 9, 11, 16, 35 and 42) with the exception of the following goods in Class 7 which are also granted: ‘machine coupling and transmission components (except for land vehicles); agricultural implements other than hand-operated; incubators for eggs; automatic vending machines’; and

                  —

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

         Plea in law

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


title: Case C-391/18: Order of the President of the Ninth of the Court of 8 April 2019 — European Commission v Republic of Croatia

text:
               19.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 280/33

      Order of the President of the Ninth of the Court of 8 April 2019 — European Commission v Republic of Croatia
      (Case C-391/18) (1)

      (2019/C 280/46)
      Language of the case: Croatian
      The President of the Ninth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 268, 30.7.2018.


title: Case C-294/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Constanța (Romania) lodged on 10 April 2019 — Agenția de Plăți și Intervenție pentru Agricultură — Centrul Județean Tulcea v SC Piscicola Tulcea SA

text:
               26.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/13

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Constanța (Romania) lodged on 10 April 2019 — Agenția de Plăți și Intervenție pentru Agricultură — Centrul Județean Tulcea v SC Piscicola Tulcea SA
      (Case C-294/19)
      (2019/C 288/16)
      Language of the case: Romanian

         Referring court

      Curtea de Apel Constanța

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant/defendant at first instance: Agenția de Plăți și Intervenție pentru Agricultură — Centrul Județean Tulcea

         Respondent/applicant at first instance: SC Piscicola Tulcea SA

         Question referred

      Must Articles 2 and 34(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003, (1) and Article 2 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1120/2009 of 29 October 2009 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of the single payment scheme provided for in Title III of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, (2) be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, in the conditions obtaining in the main proceedings, excludes a farmer from payment of the entitlements on the ground that the aquaculture facilities used as arable land do not constitute an ‘agricultural area’ for the purposes of Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 1120/2009 since they are not regarded as eligible land under Article 34(2) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009?

         (1)  OJ 2009 L 30, p. 16.

         (2)  OJ 2009 L 316, p. 1.


title: Case T-466/16: Judgment of the General Court of 26 June 2019 — NRW. Bank v SRB (Action for annulment — Economic and monetary union — Banking union — Single resolution mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) — Single Resolution Fund (SRF) — Setting of the ex ante contribution for 2016 — Time limit for bringing an action — Delay — Article 76 of the Rules of procedure of the General Court — Inadmissibility)

text:
               26.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/44

      Judgment of the General Court of 26 June 2019 — NRW. Bank v SRB
      (Case T-466/16) (1)

      (Action for annulment - Economic and monetary union - Banking union - Single resolution mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) - Single Resolution Fund (SRF) - Setting of the ex ante contribution for 2016 - Time limit for bringing an action - Delay - Article 76 of the Rules of procedure of the General Court - Inadmissibility)
      (2019/C 288/56)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: NRW. Bank (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented initially by: A. Behrens, J. Kraayvanger and J. Seitz, and subsequently by J. Seitz and D. Flore, lawyers)

         Defendant: Single Resolution Board (represented by: B. Meyring, S. Schelo, T. Klupsch and S. Ianc, lawyers)

         Interveners in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: K. Michoel and J. Bauerschmidt, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: A. Steiblytė and K.-Ph. Wojcik, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment, first, of the decision of the SRB in its executive session of 15 April 2016 on the ex ante contributions for 2016 to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2016/06) and, secondly, of the decision of the SRB in its executive session of 20 May 2016 on the adjustment of the ex ante contributions for 2016 to the Single Resolution Fund, supplementing the decision of the SRB in its executive session of 15 April 2016 on the ex ante contributions for 2016 to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2016/13), in so far as they relate to the applicant.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

                  2.

                     Orders NRW. Bank to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Single Resolution Board (SRB);

                  3.

                     Orders the Council of the European Union and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 371, 10.10.2016.


title: Case C-377/17: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 4 July 2019 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Services in the internal market — Directive 2006/123/EC — Article 15 — Article 49 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Fees of architects and engineers for planning services — Minimum and maximum tariffs)

text:
               9.9.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/2

      Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 4 July 2019 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany
      (Case C-377/17) (1)

      (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Services in the internal market - Directive 2006/123/EC - Article 15 - Article 49 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Fees of architects and engineers for planning services - Minimum and maximum tariffs)
      (2019/C 305/02)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: European Commission (represented by: W. Mölls, L. Malferrari and H. Tserepa-Lacombe, acting as Agents)

         Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented initially by: T. Henze and D. Klebs, and subsequently by D. Klebs, acting as Agents)

         Intervener in support of the defendant: Hungary (represented by: M.Z. Fehér, G. Koós and M.M. Tátrai, acting as Agents

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Declares that, by maintaining fixed tariffs for the planning services of architects and engineers, the Federal Republic of Germany failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 15(1), (2)(g) and (3) of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market.

                  2.

                  Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

                  3.

                  Orders Hungary to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 269, 14.8.2017.


title: Case C-622/17: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 July 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vilniaus apygardos administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — Baltic Media Alliance Ltd v Lietuvos radijo ir televizijos komisija (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom to provide services — Directive 2010/13/EU — Audiovisual media services — Television broadcasting — Article 3(1) and (2) — Freedom of reception and retransmission — Incitement to hatred on grounds of nationality — Measures taken by the receiving Member State — Temporary obligation for media service providers and other persons providing services relating to the distribution of television channels or programmes via the internet to distribute or retransmit a television channel in the territory of that Member State only in pay-to-view packages)

text:
               9.9.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/5

      Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 July 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vilniaus apygardos administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — Baltic Media Alliance Ltd v Lietuvos radijo ir televizijos komisija
      (Case C-622/17) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom to provide services - Directive 2010/13/EU - Audiovisual media services - Television broadcasting - Article 3(1) and (2) - Freedom of reception and retransmission - Incitement to hatred on grounds of nationality - Measures taken by the receiving Member State - Temporary obligation for media service providers and other persons providing services relating to the distribution of television channels or programmes via the internet to distribute or retransmit a television channel in the territory of that Member State only in pay-to-view packages)
      (2019/C 305/05)
      Language of the case: Lithuanian

         Referring court

      Vilniaus apygardos administracinis teismas

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Baltic Media Alliance Ltd

         Defendant: Lietuvos radijo ir televizijos komisija

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 3(1) and (2) of Directive 2010/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2010 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive) must be interpreted as meaning that a public policy measure adopted by a Member State, consisting in an obligation for media service providers whose programmes are directed towards the territory of that Member State and for other persons providing consumers of that Member State with services relating to the distribution of television channels or programmes via the internet to distribute or retransmit in the territory of that Member State, for a period of 12 months, a television channel from another Member State only in pay-to-view packages, without however restricting the retransmission as such in the territory of the first Member State of the television programmes of that channel, is not covered by that provision.

         (1)  OJ C 52, 12.2.2018.


title: Case C-624/17: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 July 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Den Haag — Netherlands) — Criminal proceedings against Tronex BV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Waste — Shipments — Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 — Article 2(1) — Directive 2008/98/EC — Article 3(1) — Concepts of ‘shipment of waste’ and ‘waste’ — Consignment of goods initially intended for retail sale, returned by consumers or become redundant in the seller’s product range)

text:
               9.9.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/5

      Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 July 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Den Haag — Netherlands) — Criminal proceedings against Tronex BV
      (Case C-624/17) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Waste - Shipments - Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 - Article 2(1) - Directive 2008/98/EC - Article 3(1) - Concepts of ‘shipment of waste’ and ‘waste’ - Consignment of goods initially intended for retail sale, returned by consumers or become redundant in the seller’s product range)
      (2019/C 305/06)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Referring court

      Gerechtshof Den Haag

         Party in the main proceedings

      Tronex BV

         Operative part of the judgment

      The shipment to a third country of a consignment of electrical and electronic appliances, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which had been initially intended for retail sale but which were returned by the consumer or which, for various reasons, were sent back by the retailer to its supplier, is to be regarded as a ‘shipment of waste’ within the meaning of Article 1(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste, read in conjunction with Article 2(1) thereof, and Article 3(1) of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives, where that consignment contains appliances the good working condition of which has not been previously ascertained or which are not adequately protected from transport damage. Such goods which have become redundant in the seller’s product range and which are in their unopened original packaging, on the other hand, must not, without indications to the contrary, be regarded as waste.

         (1)  OJ C 32, 29.1.2018.


title: Case C-644/17: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 July 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — proceedings brought by Eurobolt BV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 267 TFEU — Right to an effective remedy — Extent of review by national courts of an act of the European Union — Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 — Article 15(2) — Communication to the Member States, no later than 10 working days before the meeting of the Advisory Committee, of all relevant information — Concept of ‘relevant information’ — Essential procedural requirement — Implementing Regulation (EU) No 723/2011 — Extension of the anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in China to imports consigned from Malaysia — Validity)

text:
               9.9.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/6

      Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 July 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — proceedings brought by Eurobolt BV
      (Case C-644/17) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 267 TFEU - Right to an effective remedy - Extent of review by national courts of an act of the European Union - Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Article 15(2) - Communication to the Member States, no later than 10 working days before the meeting of the Advisory Committee, of all relevant information - Concept of ‘relevant information’ - Essential procedural requirement - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 723/2011 - Extension of the anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in China to imports consigned from Malaysia - Validity)
      (2019/C 305/07)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Referring court

      Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

         Parties to the main proceedings

      Eurobolt BV

         Intervener: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Article 267 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to contest the validity of a piece of secondary EU legislation, an individual may rely before a national court or tribunal on complaints that could be put forward in the context of an action for annulment under Article 263 TFEU, including complaints alleging a failure to satisfy the conditions for adopting such a piece of legislation.

                  2.

                  Article 267 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 4(3) TEU, must be interpreted as meaning that a national court or tribunal is entitled, prior to bringing proceedings before the Court of Justice, to approach the EU institutions that have taken part in drawing up a piece of secondary EU legislation, the validity of which is being contested before that court or tribunal, in order to obtain specific information and evidence from those institutions which it considers essential in order to dispel all doubts which it may have as regards the validity of the EU act concerned and so that it may avoid referring a question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling for the purpose of assessing the validity of that act.

                  3.

                  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 723/2011 of 18 July 2011 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of certain iron or steel fasteners consigned from Malaysia, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not, is invalid, inasmuch as it was adopted in breach of Article 15(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community.

         (1)  OJ C 52, 12.2.2018.


title: Case C-649/17: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 July 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband eV v Amazon EU Sàrl (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 2011/83/EU — Article 6(1)(c) — Information requirements for distance and off-premises contracts — Obligation, for a trader, to indicate its telephone number and its fax number ‘where they are available’ — Scope)

text:
               9.9.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/7

      Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 July 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband eV v Amazon EU Sàrl
      (Case C-649/17) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 2011/83/EU - Article 6(1)(c) - Information requirements for distance and off-premises contracts - Obligation, for a trader, to indicate its telephone number and its fax number ‘where they are available’ - Scope)
      (2019/C 305/08)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Bundesgerichtshof

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband eV

         Respondent: Amazon EU Sàrl

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 6(1)(c) of Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council must be interpreted as, firstly, precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which imposes on traders, before concluding a distance or off-premises contract referred to in Article 2(7) and (8) of that directive, to provide, in all circumstances, their telephone number. Secondly, that provision does not imply an obligation for traders to establish a telephone or fax line, or to create a new email address to allow consumers to contact them and requires that number, the fax number or their email address to be communicated only where those traders already have those means of communication with consumers;
      Article 6(1)(c) of Directive 2011/83 must be interpreted as meaning that, although that provision requires traders to make available to consumers a means of communication capable of satisfying the criteria of direct and effective communication, it does not preclude those traders from providing other means of communication than those listed in that provision in order to satisfy those criteria.

         (1)  OJ C 112, 26.3.2018.


title: Case C-668/17 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 July 2019 — Viridis Pharmaceutical Ltd. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Hecht-Pharma GmbH (Appeal — European Union trade mark — Revocation proceedings — Word mark Boswelan — No genuine use — Use of the mark in a clinical trial prior to filing an application for authorisation to place a medicinal product on the market — Proper reason for non-use — Concept)

text:
               9.9.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/8

      Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 July 2019 — Viridis Pharmaceutical Ltd. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Hecht-Pharma GmbH
      (Case C-668/17 P) (1)

      (Appeal - European Union trade mark - Revocation proceedings - Word mark Boswelan - No genuine use - Use of the mark in a clinical trial prior to filing an application for authorisation to place a medicinal product on the market - Proper reason for non-use - Concept)
      (2019/C 305/09)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Appellant: Viridis Pharmaceutical Ltd. (represented by C. Spintig, S. Pietzcker and M. Prasse, Rechtsanwälte)

         Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by S. Hanne, acting as Agent), Hecht-Pharma GmbH (represented by J. Sachs and C. Sachs, Rechtsanwälte)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Viridis Pharmaceutical Ltd to pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and Hecht-Pharma GmbH.

         (1)  OJ C 83, 5.3.2018.


title: Case C-697/17: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 July 2019 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Telecom Italia SpA v Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, Infrastrutture e telecomunicazioni per l’Italia SpA (Infratel Italia SpA) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Award of public supply and public works contracts — Directive 2014/24/EU — Article 28(2) — Restricted procedure — Economic operators admitted to submit a tender — Need for the pre-selected candidate and the candidate submitting the tender to be legally and factually identical — Principle of equal treatment of tenderers)

text:
               9.9.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/9

      Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 July 2019 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Telecom Italia SpA v Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, Infrastrutture e telecomunicazioni per l’Italia SpA (Infratel Italia SpA)
      (Case C-697/17) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Award of public supply and public works contracts - Directive 2014/24/EU - Article 28(2) - Restricted procedure - Economic operators admitted to submit a tender - Need for the pre-selected candidate and the candidate submitting the tender to be legally and factually identical - Principle of equal treatment of tenderers)
      (2019/C 305/10)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Consiglio di Stato

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Telecom Italia SpA

         Defendants: Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, Infrastrutture e telecomunicazioni per l’Italia SpA (Infratel Italia SpA)

         Intervener: OpEn Fiber SpA

         Operative part of the judgment

      The first sentence of Article 28(2) of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC must be interpreted, with regard to the requirement that the pre-selected operators and the operators submitting tenders be legally and factually identical, as not precluding, in the context of a restricted procedure for the award of a public procurement contract, a pre-selected candidate who agrees to merge with another pre-selected candidate under a merger agreement concluded between the pre-selection stage and the stage when tenders are submitted and performed after that submission stage from submitting a tender.

         (1)  OJ C 112, 26.3.2018.


title: Case C-716/17: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 July 2019 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret — Denmark) — proceedings brought by A (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of movement for workers — Restrictions — Initiation of debt relief proceedings — Condition of residence — Whether permissible — Article 45 TFEU — Direct effect)

text:
               9.9.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/9

      Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 July 2019 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret — Denmark) — proceedings brought by A
      (Case C-716/17) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of movement for workers - Restrictions - Initiation of debt relief proceedings - Condition of residence - Whether permissible - Article 45 TFEU - Direct effect)
      (2019/C 305/11)
      Language of the case: Danish

         Referring court

      Østre Landsret

         Party to the main proceedings

      A

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Article 45 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a rule on jurisdiction laid down by the legislation of a Member State, such as the one at issue in the main proceedings, that makes a grant of debt relief subject to the condition that the debtor must have his domicile or residence in that Member State.

                  2.

                  Article 45 TFEU must be interpreted as requiring the national court to disapply the residence condition laid down by a national rule on jurisdiction, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, irrespective of whether the debt relief proceedings, which are also laid down by that legislation, may potentially affect the debt claims of private creditors under that legislation.

         (1)  OJ C 83, 5.3.2018.


title: Case C-722/17: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 July 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bezirksgericht Villach — Austria) — Norbert Reitbauer and Others v Enrico Casamassima (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters — Exclusive jurisdiction — Article 24(1) and (5) — Actions concerning rights in rem in immovable property and enforcement of judgments — Judicially ordered auction of a property — Opposition proceedings regarding the distribution of the proceeds from that auction)

text:
               9.9.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/10

      Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 July 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bezirksgericht Villach — Austria) — Norbert Reitbauer and Others v Enrico Casamassima
      (Case C-722/17) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters - Exclusive jurisdiction - Article 24(1) and (5) - Actions concerning rights in rem in immovable property and enforcement of judgments - Judicially ordered auction of a property - Opposition proceedings regarding the distribution of the proceeds from that auction)
      (2019/C 305/12)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Bezirksgericht Villach

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: Norbert Reitbauer, Dolinschek GmbH, B.T.S. Trendfloor Raumausstattungs-GmbH, Elektrounternehmen K. Maschke GmbH, Klaus Egger, Architekt DI Klaus Egger Ziviltechniker GmbH

         Defendant: Enrico Casamassima

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 24(1) and (5) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that an action brought by a pledgee challenging the distribution of the proceeds from a judicially ordered auction of a property and seeking, first, the finding that a competing debt has been extinguished by reason of a financial settlement and, second, that the pledge guaranteeing enforcement of that latter debt is unenforceable, does not come within the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State where the property is situated or of the courts of the place of enforcement.

         (1)  OJ C 268, 30.7.2018.


title: Case C-19/18 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 July 2019 — VG, successor in title to Ms v European Commission (Appeal — Action for damages against the European Commission — Decision of the Commission to put an end to a collaboration in connection with the Team Europe network — Compensation for the damage suffered — Plea of inadmissibility raised by the Commission — Whether the dispute is contractual or tortious)

text:
               9.9.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/11

      Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 July 2019 — VG, successor in title to Ms v European Commission
      (Case C-19/18 P) (1)

      (Appeal - Action for damages against the European Commission - Decision of the Commission to put an end to a collaboration in connection with the Team Europe network - Compensation for the damage suffered - Plea of inadmissibility raised by the Commission - Whether the dispute is contractual or tortious)
      (2019/C 305/13)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Appellant: VG, successor in title to Ms (represented by: L. Levi, avocate)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: I. Martínez del Peral, C. Ehrbar and B. Mongin, acting as Agents)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the appeal;

                  2.

                  Orders VG to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 83, 5.3.2018.


title: Case C-26/18: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 July 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hessisches Finanzgericht — Germany) — Federal Express Corporation Deutsche Niederlassung v Hauptzollamt Frankfurt am Main (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Customs Union — Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 — Articles 202 and 203 — Customs duties on imports — Incurrence of a customs debt due to failure to comply with customs rules — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 2(1)(d) and Article 30 — Import VAT — Taxable event — Definition of ‘importation’ of goods — Requirement of entry of the goods into the economic network of the European Union — Transportation of those goods into a Member State other than the Member State in which the customs debt arose)

text:
               9.9.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/12

      Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 July 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hessisches Finanzgericht — Germany) — Federal Express Corporation Deutsche Niederlassung v Hauptzollamt Frankfurt am Main
      (Case C-26/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs Union - Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Articles 202 and 203 - Customs duties on imports - Incurrence of a customs debt due to failure to comply with customs rules - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 2(1)(d) and Article 30 - Import VAT - Taxable event - Definition of ‘importation’ of goods - Requirement of entry of the goods into the economic network of the European Union - Transportation of those goods into a Member State other than the Member State in which the customs debt arose)
      (2019/C 305/14)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Hessisches Finanzgericht

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Federal Express Corporation Deutsche Niederlassung

         Defendant: Hauptzollamt Frankfurt am Main

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 2(1)(d) and Article 30 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that, when goods are introduced into the territory of the European Union, it is not sufficient that those goods were the subject of a failure to comply with customs rules in a given Member State, which in that Member State gave rise to a customs debt on importation, in order to find that those goods entered into the economic network of the European Union in that Member State, where is it is established that those goods were transported into another Member State, their final destination, where they were consumed, the import VAT relating to those goods then arising only in that other Member State.

         (1)  OJ C 152, 30.4.2018.


title: Case C-39/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 July 2019 — European Commission v NEX International Limited, formerly Icap plc, Icap Management Services Ltd, Icap New Zealand Ltd (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Japanese yen interest rate derivatives sector — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Liability of an undertaking for its role as facilitator of the cartel — Calculation of the fine — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               9.9.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/12

      Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 July 2019 — European Commission v NEX International Limited, formerly Icap plc, Icap Management Services Ltd, Icap New Zealand Ltd
      (Case C-39/18 P) (1)

      (Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Japanese yen interest rate derivatives sector - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Liability of an undertaking for its role as facilitator of the cartel - Calculation of the fine - Obligation to state reasons)
      (2019/C 305/15)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

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

         Other parties to the proceedings: NEX International Limited, formerly Icap plc, Icap Management Services Ltd, Icap New Zealand Ltd (represented by: C. Riis-Madsen, advokat, and by S. Frank, avocat)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the appeal;

                  2.

                  Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 142, 23.4.2018.


title: Case C-89/18: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 July 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret — Denmark) — A v Udlændinge- og Integrationsministeriet (Reference for a preliminary ruling — EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Decision No 1/80 — Article 13 — Standstill clause — Family reunification of spouses — New restriction — Overriding reason in the public interest — Successful integration — Efficient management of migration flows — Proportionality)

text:
               9.9.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/13

      Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 July 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret — Denmark) — A v Udlændinge- og Integrationsministeriet
      (Case C-89/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Decision No 1/80 - Article 13 - Standstill clause - Family reunification of spouses - New restriction - Overriding reason in the public interest - Successful integration - Efficient management of migration flows - Proportionality)
      (2019/C 305/16)
      Language of the case: Danish

         Referring court

      Østre Landsret

         Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: A

         Defendant: Udlændinge- og Integrationsministeriet

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association, adopted by the Association Council set up by the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey, signed at Ankara on 12 September 1963 by the Republic of Turkey, on the one hand, and by the Member States of the EEC and the Community, on the other hand, and concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Decision 64/732/EEC of 23 December 1963, must be interpreted as meaning that a national measure which makes family reunification between a Turkish worker legally resident in the Member State concerned and his spouse conditional upon their overall attachment to that Member State being greater than their overall attachment to a third country, constitutes a ‘new restriction’, within the meaning of that provision. Such a restriction is unjustified.

         (1)  OJ C 142, 23.4.2018.


title: Case C-99/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 4 July 2019 — FTI Touristik GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Harald Prantner, Daniel Giersch (Appeal — EU trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Opposition proceedings — Article 8(1)(b) — Application for registration of the figurative mark including the word element ‘Fl’ — Opposition by the proprietor of the figurative mark including the word element ‘fly.de’ — Rejection — Similarity between the signs — Name in normal script in the European Union Trade Marks Bulletin — Likelihood of confusion)

text:
               9.9.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/15

      Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 4 July 2019 — FTI Touristik GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Harald Prantner, Daniel Giersch
      (Case C-99/18 P) (1)

      (Appeal - EU trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Opposition proceedings - Article 8(1)(b) - Application for registration of the figurative mark including the word element ‘Fl’ - Opposition by the proprietor of the figurative mark including the word element ‘fly.de’ - Rejection - Similarity between the signs - Name in normal script in the European Union Trade Marks Bulletin - Likelihood of confusion)
      (2019/C 305/18)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Appellant: FTI Touristik GmbH (represented by: A. Parr, Rechtsanwältin)

         Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: D. Walicka and D. Botis, Agents), Harald Prantner, Daniel Giersch (represented by: S. Eble, Rechtsanwalt)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the appeal;

                  2.

                  Orders FTI Touristik GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office of the European Union for Intellectual Property (EUIPO);

                  3.

                  Orders Mr Harald Prantner and Mr Daniel Giersch to bear their own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 182, 28.5.2018.


title: Case C-163/18: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 July 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Noord-Nederland — Netherlands) — HQ, IP, legally represented by HQ, JO v Aegean Airlines SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Air transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights — Flight cancellation — Assistance — Right to reimbursement of the cost of the air ticket by the air carrier — Article 8(2) — Package tour — Directive 90/314/EEC — Insolvency of the tour organiser)

text:
               9.9.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/15

      Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 July 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Noord-Nederland — Netherlands) — HQ, IP, legally represented by HQ, JO v Aegean Airlines SA
      (Case C-163/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights - Flight cancellation - Assistance - Right to reimbursement of the cost of the air ticket by the air carrier - Article 8(2) - Package tour - Directive 90/314/EEC - Insolvency of the tour organiser)
      (2019/C 305/19)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Referring court

      Rechtbank Noord-Nederland

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: HQ, IP, legally represented by HQ, JO

         Defendant: Aegean Airlines SA

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, must be interpreted as meaning that a passenger who, under Council Directive 90/314/EEC of 13 June 1990 on package travel, package holidays and package tours, has the right to hold his tour organiser liable for reimbursement of the cost of his air ticket, can no longer claim reimbursement of the cost of that ticket from the air carrier, on the basis of that regulation, even where the tour organiser is financially incapable of reimbursing the cost of the ticket and has not taken any measures to guarantee such reimbursement.

         (1)  OJ C 182, 28.5.2018.


title: Joined Cases C-180/18, C-286/18 and C-287/18: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 11 July 2019 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Agrenergy Srl (C-180/18 and C-286/18), Fusignano Due Srl (C-287/18) v Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Directive 2009/28/EC — Article 3(3)(a) — Promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources — Production of electricity by solar photovoltaic plants — Alteration of a support scheme — Principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations)

text:
               9.9.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/16

      Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 11 July 2019 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Agrenergy Srl (C-180/18 and C-286/18), Fusignano Due Srl (C-287/18) v Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico
      (Joined Cases C-180/18, C-286/18 and C-287/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Directive 2009/28/EC - Article 3(3)(a) - Promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources - Production of electricity by solar photovoltaic plants - Alteration of a support scheme - Principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations)
      (2019/C 305/20)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Consiglio di Stato

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellants: Agrenergy Srl (C-180/18 and C-286/18), Fusignano Due Srl (C-287/18)

         Respondent: Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico

         Operative part of the judgment

      Subject to verifications to be carried out by the referring court taking into account all the relevant factors, Article 3(3)(a) of Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC, read in the light of the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which allows a Member State to provide for the reduction, or even the removal, of incentive rates for energy produced by solar photovoltaic plants which were introduced previously.

         (1)  OJ C 182, 28.5.2018.

         OJ C 249, 16.7.2018.


title: Case C-210/18: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 July 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Schienen-Control Kommission — Austria) — WESTbahn Management GmbH v ÖBB-Infrastruktur AG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Transport — Single European Railway Area — Directive 2012/34/EU — Article 3 — Concept of ‘railway infrastructure’ — Annex II — Minimum access — Inclusion of the use of passenger platforms)

text:
               9.9.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/17

      Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 July 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Schienen-Control Kommission — Austria) — WESTbahn Management GmbH v ÖBB-Infrastruktur AG
      (Case C-210/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Transport - Single European Railway Area - Directive 2012/34/EU - Article 3 - Concept of ‘railway infrastructure’ - Annex II - Minimum access - Inclusion of the use of passenger platforms)
      (2019/C 305/21)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Schienen-Control Kommission

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: WESTbahn Management GmbH

         Defendant: ÖBB-Infrastruktur AG

         Operative part of the judgment

      Annex II to Directive 2012/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 establishing a single European railway area must be interpreted as meaning that ‘passenger platforms’, referred to in Annex I to that directive, are an element of the railway infrastructure the use of which is part of the minimum access package, in accordance with point 1(c) of Annex II.

         (1)  OJ C 231, 2.7.2018.


title: Case C-242/18: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 July 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — ‘UniCredit Leasing’ EAD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ — Sofia pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite (NAP) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Taxable amount — Reduction — Principle of fiscal neutrality — Financial leasing agreement terminated for non-payment of lease instalments — Tax assessment notice — Scope — Taxable transactions — Supply of goods for consideration — Payment of ‘compensation’ for termination up to the end of the agreement — Jurisdiction of the Court of Justice)

text:
               9.9.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/18

      Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 July 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — ‘UniCredit Leasing’ EAD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ — Sofia pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite (NAP)
      (Case C-242/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Taxable amount - Reduction - Principle of fiscal neutrality - Financial leasing agreement terminated for non-payment of lease instalments - Tax assessment notice - Scope - Taxable transactions - Supply of goods for consideration - Payment of ‘compensation’ for termination up to the end of the agreement - Jurisdiction of the Court of Justice)
      (2019/C 305/22)
      Language of the case: Bulgarian

         Referring court

      Varhoven administrativen sad

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant:‘UniCredit Leasing’ EAD

         Respondent: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ — Sofia pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite (NAP)

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Article 90(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as allowing, in the event of termination of a financial leasing agreement, a reduction in the taxable amount for value added tax established as a lump sum by way of a tax assessment notice on the basis of all the monthly leasing instalments due for the entire duration of the contract, even though that tax assessment notice has become effective and therefore constitutes a ‘settled administrative act’ establishing that there is outstanding tax liability under national law.

                  2.

                  Article 90 of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, the failure to pay part of the leasing instalments due under a financial leasing agreement in respect of the period from the cessation of payments to the time of the non-retroactive termination of the agreement, on the one hand, and the failure to pay compensation due in the event of early termination of the agreement and corresponding to the amount of all the unpaid instalments up to the end of the term of the agreement, on the other hand, constitute a case of non-payment capable of being covered by the derogation from the requirement to reduce the taxable amount for value added tax, laid down in paragraph 2 of that article, unless the taxable person demonstrates a reasonable probability that the debt will not be honoured, this being a matter to be determined by the referring court.

         (1)  OJ C 211, 18.6.2018.


title: Case C-249/18: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 July 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v CEVA Freight Holland BV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Customs code — Customs declaration — Incorrect indication of the subheading of the Combined Nomenclature — Tax adjustment notice — Article 78 of that code — Revision of the declaration — Adjustment of the transaction value — Article 221 of that code — Limitation period for the right to recover the customs debt — Interruption)

text:
               9.9.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/19

      Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 July 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v CEVA Freight Holland BV
      (Case C-249/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs code - Customs declaration - Incorrect indication of the subheading of the Combined Nomenclature - Tax adjustment notice - Article 78 of that code - Revision of the declaration - Adjustment of the transaction value - Article 221 of that code - Limitation period for the right to recover the customs debt - Interruption)
      (2019/C 305/23)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Referring court

      Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

         Defendant: CEVA Freight Holland BV

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Article 78 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2700/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2000, must be interpreted as meaning that, when the declarant has the option to choose the price of the goods sold for export to the territory of the European Union as the valuation basis for the determination of their customs value and when it follows from a post-clearance inspection that the customs declaration which it made contains an error in the customs classification of the relevant goods leading to the application of a higher customs duty, the declarant may request, on the basis of that Article 78, the revision of that declaration for the purposes of obtaining a substitution of the initially indicated price by a lower transaction price in order to obtain a reduction in the amount of its customs debt.

                  2.

                  Article 221(1) and (3) of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 2700/2000, must be interpreted as meaning that it is for the Member States to determine, in compliance with the principles of effectiveness and equivalence, the date on which the debtor is to be informed of the amount of duty for the purposes of interrupting the three-year limitation period, at the end of which the customs debt is extinguished.

         (1)  OJ C 276, 6.8.2018.


title: Case C-304/18: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 July 2019 — European Commission v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Own resources — Customs duties — Finding of a customs debt — Inclusion in separate accounts — Obligation to make own resources available to the European Union — Recovery procedure initiated out of time — Default interest)

text:
               9.9.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/20

      Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 July 2019 — European Commission v Italian Republic
      (Case C-304/18) (1)

      (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Own resources - Customs duties - Finding of a customs debt - Inclusion in separate accounts - Obligation to make own resources available to the European Union - Recovery procedure initiated out of time - Default interest)
      (2019/C 305/25)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: European Commission (represented initially by Z. Malůšková, M. Owsiany-Hornung and F. Tomat, and subsequently by Z. Malůšková and F. Tomat, acting as Agents)

         Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and G. Albenzio, avvocato dello Stato)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Declares that by refusing to make available traditional own resources amounting to EUR 2 120 309,50, referred to in the write-off notice IT(07)08-917, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8 of Council Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom of 31 October 1994, on the system of the European Communities’ own resources, Article 8 of Council Decision 2000/597/EC, Euratom of 29 September 2000, on the system of the European Communities’ own resources, Article 8 of Council Decision 2007/436/EC, Euratom of 7 June 2007 on the system of the European Communities' own resources and Article 8 of Council Decision 2014/335/EU, Euratom of 26 May 2014 on the system of own resources of the European Union, and Articles 10, 11 and Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources, Articles 10, 11 and 17 Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, and Articles 10, 12 and 13 Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 609/2014 of 26 May 2014 on the methods and procedure for making available the traditional, VAT and GNI-based own resources and on the measures to meet cash requirements;

                  2.

                  Dismisses the remainder of the action;

                  3.

                  Orders the Italian Republic to pay four fifths of the costs incurred by the European Commission and to bear its own costs;

                  4.

                  Orders the European Commission to bear one fifth of its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 221, 25.6.2018.


title: Case C-316/18: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 July 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) — United Kingdom) — Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Cambridge (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Deduction of input tax — Management costs of an endowment fund that makes investments with the aim of financing the whole of the taxable person’s output transactions — Overheads)

text:
               9.9.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/21

      Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 July 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) — United Kingdom) — Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Cambridge
      (Case C-316/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Deduction of input tax - Management costs of an endowment fund that makes investments with the aim of financing the whole of the taxable person’s output transactions - Overheads)
      (2019/C 305/26)
      Language of the case: English

         Referring court

      Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division)

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

         Respondent: The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Cambridge

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 168(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that a taxable person that (i) is carrying out both taxable and exempt activities, (ii) invests the donations and endowments that it receives by placing them in a fund and (iii) uses the income generated by that fund to cover the costs of all of those activities is not entitled to deduct, as an overhead, input value added tax paid in respect of the costs associated with that investment.

         (1)  OJ C 249, 16.7.2018.


title: Case C-345/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 July 2019 — Caviro Distillerie Srl, Distillerie Bonollo SpA, Distillerie Mazzari SpA, Industria Chimica Valenzana (ICV) SpA v European Commission (Appeal — Commercial policy — Dumping — Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/176 — Imports of tartaric acid originating in China and produced by Hangzhou Bioking Biochemical Engineering Co. Ltd — Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 — Article 3(2), (3) and (5) — No material injury — Manifest error of assessment — Determination of injury — Evaluation of all relevant economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the EU industry — Market share)

text:
               9.9.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/22

      Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 July 2019 — Caviro Distillerie Srl, Distillerie Bonollo SpA, Distillerie Mazzari SpA, Industria Chimica Valenzana (ICV) SpA v European Commission
      (Case C-345/18 P) (1)

      (Appeal - Commercial policy - Dumping - Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/176 - Imports of tartaric acid originating in China and produced by Hangzhou Bioking Biochemical Engineering Co. Ltd - Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Article 3(2), (3) and (5) - No material injury - Manifest error of assessment - Determination of injury - Evaluation of all relevant economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the EU industry - Market share)
      (2019/C 305/27)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellants: Caviro Distillerie Srl, Distillerie Bonollo SpA, Distillerie Mazzari SpA, Industria Chimica Valenzana (ICV) SpA (represented by: R. MacLean, Solicitor)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland and A. Demeneix, acting as Agents)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the appeal;

                  2.

                  Orders Caviro Distillerie Srl, Distillerie Bonollo SpA, Distillerie Mazzari SpA and Industria Chimica Valenzana (ICV) SpA to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 259, 23.7.2018.


title: Case C-387/18: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 July 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Warszawie — Poland) — Delfarma sp. z o.o. v Prezes Urzędu Rejestracji Produktów Leczniczych, Wyrobów Medycznych i Produktów Biobójczych (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 34 and 36 TFEU — Free movement of goods — Measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction — Protection of health and life of humans — Parallel import of medicinal products — Reference medicinal products and generic medicinal products — Requirement that the imported medicinal product and that which has been granted a marketing authorisation in the Member State of importation are both reference medicinal products or are both generic medicinal products)

text:
               9.9.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/23

      Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 July 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Warszawie — Poland) — Delfarma sp. z o.o. v Prezes Urzędu Rejestracji Produktów Leczniczych, Wyrobów Medycznych i Produktów Biobójczych
      (Case C-387/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 34 and 36 TFEU - Free movement of goods - Measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction - Protection of health and life of humans - Parallel import of medicinal products - Reference medicinal products and generic medicinal products - Requirement that the imported medicinal product and that which has been granted a marketing authorisation in the Member State of importation are both reference medicinal products or are both generic medicinal products)
      (2019/C 305/28)
      Language of the case: Polish

         Referring court

      Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Warszawie

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Delfarma sp. z o.o.

         Defendant: Prezes Urzędu Rejestracji Produktów Leczniczych, Wyrobów Medycznych i Produktów Biobójczych

         Operative part of the judgment

      Articles 34 and 36 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding the legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which requires, for the issue of a parallel import licence for a medicinal product, that that medicinal product and the medicinal product which has been granted a marketing authorisation in that Member State are both reference medicinal products or both generic medicinal products and which, therefore, prohibits the issue of any parallel import licence for a medicinal product where it is a generic medicinal product whereas the medicinal product previously authorised in that Member State is a reference medicinal product.

         (1)  OJ C 294, 20.8.2018.


title: Case C-410/18: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 July 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif — Luxembourg) — Nicolas Aubriet v Ministre de l’Enseignement supérieur et de la Recherche (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of movement for persons — Equal treatment — Social advantages — Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 — Article 7(2) — Financial aid for higher education studies — Non-resident students — Condition connected with the period of their parents’ working time on national territory — Minimum period of five years — Reference period of seven years — Method of calculation of the reference period — Date of the application for financial aid — Indirect discrimination — Justification — Proportionality)

text:
               9.9.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/23

      Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 July 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif — Luxembourg) — Nicolas Aubriet v Ministre de l’Enseignement supérieur et de la Recherche
      (Case C-410/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of movement for persons - Equal treatment - Social advantages - Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 - Article 7(2) - Financial aid for higher education studies - Non-resident students - Condition connected with the period of their parents’ working time on national territory - Minimum period of five years - Reference period of seven years - Method of calculation of the reference period - Date of the application for financial aid - Indirect discrimination - Justification - Proportionality)
      (2019/C 305/29)
      Language of the case: French

         Referring court

      Tribunal administratif

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Nicolas Aubriet

         Defendant: Ministre de l’Enseignement supérieur et de la Recherche

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 45 TFEU and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which makes the grant of financial aid for higher education studies to non-resident students subject to the condition that, at the date of the application for financial aid, one of the parents of the student has been employed or carried on an activity in that Member State for a period of at least five years in the course of a reference period of seven years calculated retroactively from the date of that application for financial aid, in so far as it does not permit the existence of any connection with the labour market of that Member State to be understood in a sufficiently broad manner.

         (1)  OJ C 301, 27.8.2018.


title: Case C-416/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 July 2019 — Mykola Yanovych Azarov v Council of the European Union (Appeal — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Ukraine — Freezing of funds and economic resources — List of persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources — Maintenance of the applicant’s name — Decision by an authority of a third State — Council’s obligation to verify that that decision was taken in accordance with the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial protection)

text:
               9.9.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/24

      Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 July 2019 — Mykola Yanovych Azarov v Council of the European Union
      (Case C-416/18 P) (1)

      (Appeal - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Ukraine - Freezing of funds and economic resources - List of persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources - Maintenance of the applicant’s name - Decision by an authority of a third State - Council’s obligation to verify that that decision was taken in accordance with the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial protection)
      (2019/C 305/30)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Appellant: Mykola Yanovych Azarov (represented by: A. Egger and G. Lansky, Rechtsanwälte)

         Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix and J. Bauerschmidt, acting as Agents)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 26 April 2018, Azarov v Council (T-190/16, not published, EU:T:2018:232);

                  2.

                  Annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/318 of 4 March 2016 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/311 of 4 March 2016 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, in so far as they concern Mr Mykola Yanovych Azarov.

                  3.

                  Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs incurred both in the proceedings at first instance and in the present appeal.

         (1)  OJ C 301, 27.8.2018.


title: Case C-434/18: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 11 July 2019 — European Commission v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2011/70/Euratom — Responsible and safe management of spent fuel and radioactive waste — National programme — Obligation to submit to the European Commission)

text:
               9.9.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/25

      Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 11 July 2019 — European Commission v Italian Republic
      (Case C-434/18) (1)

      (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2011/70/Euratom - Responsible and safe management of spent fuel and radioactive waste - National programme - Obligation to submit to the European Commission)
      (2019/C 305/31)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: European Commission (represented by: initially G. Gattinara and M. Patakia, and subsequently G. Gattinara and R. Tricot, acting as Agents)

         Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and G. Palatiello, avvocato dello Stato)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Declares that, by failing to notify the European Commission of its national programme for the implementation of spent fuel and radioactive waste management policy, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 15(4), in conjunction with Article 13(1), of Council Directive 2011/70/Euratom of 19 July 2011 establishing a Community framework for the responsible and safe management of spent fuel and radioactive waste;

                  2.

                  Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 285, 13.8.2018.


title: Case C-502/18: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 11 July 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Městský soud v Praze — Czech Republic) — CS and Others v České aerolinie a.s. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Transport — Common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Article 5(1)(c) — Article 7(1) — Right to compensation — Connecting flights — Flights consisting of two flights operated by different air carriers — Long delay in relation to the second flight with points of departure and arrival outside the European Union and operated by a carrier established in a non-Member State)

text:
               9.9.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/26

      Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 11 July 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Městský soud v Praze — Czech Republic) — CS and Others v České aerolinie a.s.
      (Case C-502/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Transport - Common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Article 5(1)(c) - Article 7(1) - Right to compensation - Connecting flights - Flights consisting of two flights operated by different air carriers - Long delay in relation to the second flight with points of departure and arrival outside the European Union and operated by a carrier established in a non-Member State)
      (2019/C 305/32)
      Language of the case: Czech

         Referring court

      Městský soud v Praze

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: CS, DR, EQ, FP, GO, HN, IM, JL, KK, LJ, MI

         Defendant: České aerolinie a.s.

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 5(1)(c) and Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, read together with Article 3(5) of Regulation No 261/2004, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of connecting flights, where there are two flights that are the subject of a single reservation, departing from an airport located within the territory of a Member State and travelling to an airport located in a non-Member State via the airport of another non-Member State, a passenger who suffers a delay in reaching his or her destination of 3 hours or more, the cause of that delay arising in the second flight, operated, under a code-share agreement, by a carrier established in a non-Member State, may bring his or her action for compensation under that regulation against the Community air carrier that performed the first flight.

         (1)  OJ C 341, 24.9.2018.


title: Case C-485/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Prešove (Slovakia) lodged on 25 June 2019 — LH v PROFI CREDIT Slovakia s.r.o.

text:
               9.9.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/26

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Prešove (Slovakia) lodged on 25 June 2019 — LH v PROFI CREDIT Slovakia s.r.o.
      (Case C-485/19)
      (2019/C 305/33)
      Language of the case: Slovak

         Referring court

      Krajský súd v Prešove

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: LH

         Defendant: PROFI CREDIT Slovakia s.r.o.

         Questions referred

                  A.

                              1.

                              Must Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘Article 47 of the Charter’) and, by implication, the consumer’s right to an effective legal remedy be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as Article 107(2) of the Občianský zákonník (Civil Code of Slovakia) on the limitation of the consumer’s right by a statutory three-year limitation period, in accordance with which the consumer’s right to reimbursement which arises from an unfair contractual term may become time-barred even where the consumer is not in a position to evaluate the unfair contractual term and the limitation period starts even without the consumer being aware that the contractual term is unfair?

                              2.

                              In the event that, despite a lack of awareness on the part of the consumer, the legislation which imposes an statutory limitation period of three years on the consumer’s right is consistent with Article 47 of the Charter and the principle of effectiveness, the national court then asks the following:
                              Is a national practice contrary to Article 47 of the Charter and the principle of effectiveness if, in accordance with that practice, the burden of proof falls on the consumer, who must prove in legal proceedings that the persons acting on behalf of the creditor were aware of the fact that the creditor was infringing the consumer’s rights, in the present case that awareness consisting in the knowledge that, by failing to indicate the precise annual percentage rate of charge (APR), the creditor was infringing a legal provision, and must also prove awareness of the fact that, in such circumstances, the loan was non-interest bearing and, by receiving payments of interest, the creditor obtained unjust enrichment?

                              3.

                              In the event that question A.2 is answered in the negative, on the part of which persons, among the directors, the shareholders and the commercial representatives of the creditor, must the consumer prove awareness of the matters referred to in question A.2?

                              4.

                              In the event that question A.2 is answered in the negative, what degree of awareness must be shown in order to prove the supplier’s intention to infringe the relevant financial sector rules?

                  B.

                              1.

                              Do the effects of the directives and the relevant case-law of the Court of Justice on the matter, including DI, C-441/14, EU:C:2016:278, Pfeiffer, C-397/01 to C-403/01, EU:C:2004:584, paragraphs 113 and 114, Kücükdeveci, C-555/07, EU:C:2010:21, paragraph 48, Impact, C-268/06, EU:C:2008:223, paragraph 100, Dominguez, C-282/10, paragraphs 25 and 27, and Association de médiation sociale, C-176/12, EU:C:2014:2, paragraph 38, preclude a national practice in accordance with which the national court reaches a conclusion concerning interpretation in conformity with EU law without employing interpretative methods and without giving due reasons?

                              2.

                              If, after applying interpretative methods, such as purposive interpretation, authentic interpretation, historical interpretation, contextual interpretation, logical interpretation (the a contrario method, the reductio ad absurdum method) and after applying the whole body of domestic law, in order to secure the objectives referred to in Article 10(2)(h) and (i) of Directive 2008/48/EC (1) (‘the Directive’), the national court concludes that interpretation in conformity with EU law results in a situation contra legem, is it then possible — for example, by making a comparison with relationships involving discrimination or the protection of employees — to accord the abovementioned provision of the Directive direct effect, in order to protect traders against consumers in credit relationships, and disapply the provision of law which is not in conformity with EU law?

         (1)  Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC (OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66).