title: Case T-851/14: Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Slovak Telekom v Commission (Competition — Abuse of dominant position — Slovakian market for broadband telecommunications services — Access by third-party undertakings to the ‘local loop’ of the incumbent operator on that market — Decision finding an infringement of Article 102 TFEU and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement — Single and continuous infringement — Definition of ‘abuse’ — Refusal to grant access — Margin squeeze — Calculation of margin squeeze — Equally efficient competitor test — Rights of defence — Imputation of an infringement committed by a subsidiary to its parent company — Decisive influence of the parent company over the subsidiary’s commercial policy — Actual exercise of such influence — Burden of proof — Calculation of the fine — 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines)

text:
               4.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/32

      Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Slovak Telekom v Commission
      (Case T-851/14) (1)

      ((Competition - Abuse of dominant position - Slovakian market for broadband telecommunications services - Access by third-party undertakings to the ‘local loop’ of the incumbent operator on that market - Decision finding an infringement of Article 102 TFEU and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement - Single and continuous infringement - Definition of ‘abuse’ - Refusal to grant access - Margin squeeze - Calculation of margin squeeze - Equally efficient competitor test - Rights of defence - Imputation of an infringement committed by a subsidiary to its parent company - Decisive influence of the parent company over the subsidiary’s commercial policy - Actual exercise of such influence - Burden of proof - Calculation of the fine - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines))
      (2019/C 82/35)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Slovak Telekom, a.s. (Bratislava, Slovakia) (represented by: D. Geradin, lawyer, and R. O’Donoghue QC)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: M. Farley, L. Malferrari and G. Koleva, and subsequently by M. Farley, M. Kellerbauer, L. Malferrari and C. Vollrath, acting as Agents)

         Intervener in support of the defendant: Slovanet, a.s. (Bratislava) (represented by: P. Tisaj, lawyer)

         Re:

      Action under Article 263 TFEU seeking, primarily, the annulment, insofar as it concerns the applicant, of Commission Decision C(2014) 7465 final of 15 October 2014 relating to proceedings under Article 102 TFEU and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39523 — Slovak Telekom), as rectified by Commission Decision C(2014) 10119 final of 16 December 2014 and by Commission Decision C(20 15) 2484 final of 17 April 2015, and, in the alternative, the reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls Article 1(2)(d) of Commission Decision C(2014) 7465 final of 15 October 2014 relating to proceedings under Article 102 TFEU and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39523 — Slovak Telekom) in so far as it declares that, over the course of the period between 12 August and 31 December 2005, Slovak Telekom, a.s., imposed unfair tariffs which do not allow an equally efficient operator relying on wholesale access to its unbundled local loops to replicate the retail broadband services offered by it without incurring a loss;

                  2.

                  Annuls Article 2 of Decision C(2014) 7465 final in so far as it fixes the amount of the fine imposed jointly and severally on Slovak Telekom at EUR 38 838 000;

                  3.

                  Fixes the amount of the fine imposed jointly and severally on Slovak Telekom at EUR 38 061 963;

                  4.

                  Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

                  5.

                  Orders Slovak Telekom to bear four fifths of its own costs, four fifths of the costs of the European Commission and four-fifths of the costs of Slovanet, a.s.;

                  6.

                  Orders the Commission to bear one fifth of its own costs and one fifth of the costs incurred by Slovak Telekom;

                  7.

                  Orders Slovanet to bear one fifth of its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 127, 20.4.2015.


title: Case T-111/15: Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Ryanair and Airport Marketing Services v Commission (State aid — Agreements between the Syndicat mixte des aéroports de Charente and Ryanair and its subsidiary Airport Marketing Services — Airport services — Marketing services — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Notion of State aid — Imputability to the State — Chamber of Commerce and Industry — Advantage — Private investor test — Recovery — Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Right of access to the file — Right to be heard)

text:
               4.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/33

      Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Ryanair and Airport Marketing Services v Commission
      (Case T-111/15) (1)

      ((State aid - Agreements between the Syndicat mixte des aéroports de Charente and Ryanair and its subsidiary Airport Marketing Services - Airport services - Marketing services - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Notion of State aid - Imputability to the State - Chamber of Commerce and Industry - Advantage - Private investor test - Recovery - Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Right of access to the file - Right to be heard))
      (2019/C 82/36)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicants: Ryanair DAC, formerly Ryanair Ltd (Dublin, Ireland), Airport Marketing Services Ltd (Dublin) (represented by: G. Berrisch, E. Vahida, I.-G. Metaxas-Maranghidis, lawyers, and B. Byrne, Solicitor)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn and S. Noë, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking the partial annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1226 of 23 July 2014 on State aid SA.33963 (2012/C) (ex 2012/NN) implemented by France in favour of Angoulême Chamber of Commerce and Industry, SNC-Lavalin, Ryanair and Airport Marketing Services (OJ 2015 L 201, p. 48).

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Ryanair DAC and Airport Marketing Services Ltd to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

         (1)  OJ C 178, 1.6.2015.


title: Case T-165/15: Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Ryanair and Airport Marketing Services v Commission (State aid — Agreements between the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Pau-Béarn and Ryanair and its subsidiary Airport Marketing Services — Airport services — Marketing services — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Notion of State aid — Imputability to the State — Chamber of Commerce and Industry — Advantage — Private investor test — Recovery — Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Right of access to the file — Right to be heard)

text:
               4.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/34

      Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Ryanair and Airport Marketing Services v Commission
      (Case T-165/15) (1)

      ((State aid - Agreements between the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Pau-Béarn and Ryanair and its subsidiary Airport Marketing Services - Airport services - Marketing services - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Notion of State aid - Imputability to the State - Chamber of Commerce and Industry - Advantage - Private investor test - Recovery - Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Right of access to the file - Right to be heard))
      (2019/C 82/37)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicants: Ryanair DAC, formerly Ryanair Ltd (Dublin, Ireland), Airport Marketing Services Ltd (Dublin) (represented by: G. Berrisch, E. Vahida, I.-G. Metaxas-Maranghidis, lawyers, and B. Byrne, Solicitor)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn and S. Noë, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking the partial annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1227 of 23 July 2014 on State aid SA.22614 (C 53/07) implemented by France in favour of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Pau-Béarn, Ryanair, Airport Marketing Services and Transavia (OJ 2015 L 201, p. 109).

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Ryanair DAC and Airport Marketing Services Ltd to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

         (1)  OJ C 228, 13.7.2015.


title: Case T-284/15: Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — AlzChem v Commission (State aid — Chemical industry — Decision to continue the operation of an undertaking during insolvency proceedings — Decision finding no State aid — Action for annulment — Individual concern — Admissibility — Concept of State aid — Advantage — Private creditor test — Whether attributable to the State — Duty to state reasons)

text:
               4.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/34

      Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — AlzChem v Commission
      (Case T-284/15) (1)

      ((State aid - Chemical industry - Decision to continue the operation of an undertaking during insolvency proceedings - Decision finding no State aid - Action for annulment - Individual concern - Admissibility - Concept of State aid - Advantage - Private creditor test - Whether attributable to the State - Duty to state reasons))
      (2019/C 82/38)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: AlzChem AG (Trostberg, Germany) (represented by: initially P. Alexiadis, Solicitor, A. Borsos and I. Georgiopoulos, lawyers, and subsequently P. Alexiadis, A. Borsos, E. Kazili, P. Oravec et K. Csach, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Conte and L. Armati, acting as Agents)

         Interveners in support of the defendant: Slovak Republic (represented by: B. Ricziová, acting as Agent); and Fortischem a.s. (Nováky, Slovakia) (represented by: C. Arhold, P. Hodál and M. Staroň, lawyers)

         Re:

      Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Article 2 of Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1826 of 15 October 2014 on State aid SA.33797 — (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) (ex 2011/CP) implemented by Slovakia for NCHZ (OJ 2015 L 269, p. 71).

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls Article 2 of Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1826 of 15 October 2014 on State aid SA.33797 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) (ex 2011/CP) implemented by Slovakia for NCHZ;

                  2.

                  Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of AlzChem AG;

                  3.

                  Orders the Slovak Republic and Fortischem a.s. to bear their own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 302, 14.9.2015.


title: Case T-558/15: Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Iran Insurance v Council (Non-contractual liability — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran — Freezing of funds — Inclusion and maintenance of the applicant’s name on the lists of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures — Material damage — Non-material damage)

text:
               4.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/35

      Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Iran Insurance v Council
      (Case T-558/15) (1)

      ((Non-contractual liability - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran - Freezing of funds - Inclusion and maintenance of the applicant’s name on the lists of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures - Material damage - Non-material damage))
      (2019/C 82/39)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Iran Insurance Company (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: D. Luff, lawyer)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and M. Bishop, acting as Agents)

         Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Ronkes Agerbeek and R. Tricot, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application pursuant to Article 268 TFEU for compensation for the material and non-material damage allegedly suffered by the applicant following the adoption of Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP of 25 October 2010 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 81), of Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 1), of Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 71), of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation No 961/2010 (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 11), and of Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1), by which the applicant’s name was included and maintained on the lists of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Iran Insurance Company to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

                  3.

                  Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 27, 25.1.2016.


title: Case T-559/15: Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Post Bank Iran v Council (Non-contractual liability — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran — Freezing of funds — Inclusion and maintenance of the applicant’s name on the lists of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures — Non-material damage)

text:
               4.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/36

      Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Post Bank Iran v Council
      (Case T-559/15) (1)

      ((Non-contractual liability - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran - Freezing of funds - Inclusion and maintenance of the applicant’s name on the lists of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures - Non-material damage))
      (2019/C 82/40)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Post Bank Iran (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: D. Luff, lawyer)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and M. Bishop, acting as Agents)

         Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Ronkes Agerbeek and R. Tricot, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application pursuant to Article 268 TFEU for compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant following the adoption of Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP of 25 October 2010 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 81), of Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 1), of Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 71), of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation No 961/2010 (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 11), and of Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1), by which the applicant’s name was included and maintained on the lists of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Post Bank Iran to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

                  3.

                  Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 27, 25.1.2016.


title: Case T-591/15: Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Transavia Airlines v Commission (State aid — Airport and marketing services agreement — Agreement between the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Pau-Béarn and Transavia — Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Concept of State aid — Whether attributable to the State — Chamber of Commerce and Industry — Advantage — Private investor test — Recovery — Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Right of access to the file — Right to be heard)

text:
               4.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/37

      Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Transavia Airlines v Commission
      (Case T-591/15) (1)

      ((State aid - Airport and marketing services agreement - Agreement between the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Pau-Béarn and Transavia - Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Concept of State aid - Whether attributable to the State - Chamber of Commerce and Industry - Advantage - Private investor test - Recovery - Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Right of access to the file - Right to be heard))
      (2019/C 82/41)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Parties

         Applicant: Transavia Airlines CV (Schiphol, Netherlands) (represented by: R. Elkerbout and M. Baneke, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn and S. Noë, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking the partial annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1227 of 23 July 2014 on State aid SA.22614 (C 53/07) implemented by France in favour of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Pau-Béarn, Ryanair, Airport Marketing Services and Transavia (OJ 2015 L 201, p. 109).

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Transavia Airlines CV to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

         (1)  OJ C 398, 30.11.2015.


title: Case T-630/15: Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Scandlines Danmark and Scandlines Deutschland v Commission (State aid — Public financing of the Fehmarn Belt fixed link rail-road project — Individual aid — Decision not to raise any objections — Decision finding no State aid and declaring the aid compatible with the internal market — Definition of State aid — Adverse effect on competition and effect on trade between Member States — Conditions governing compatibility — Aid to promote the execution of an important project of common European interest — Necessity of the aid — Incentive effect — Proportionality of the aid — Serious difficulties justifying the initiation of the formal investigation procedure — Obligation to state reasons — Communication on State aid to promote the execution of important projects of common European interest)

text:
               4.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/37

      Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Scandlines Danmark and Scandlines Deutschland v Commission
      (Case T-630/15) (1)

      ((State aid - Public financing of the Fehmarn Belt fixed link rail-road project - Individual aid - Decision not to raise any objections - Decision finding no State aid and declaring the aid compatible with the internal market - Definition of State aid - Adverse effect on competition and effect on trade between Member States - Conditions governing compatibility - Aid to promote the execution of an important project of common European interest - Necessity of the aid - Incentive effect - Proportionality of the aid - Serious difficulties justifying the initiation of the formal investigation procedure - Obligation to state reasons - Communication on State aid to promote the execution of important projects of common European interest))
      (2019/C 82/42)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicants: Scandlines Danmark ApS (Copenhagen, Denmark) and Scandlines Deutschland GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: initially L. Sandberg-Mørch and M.-E. Vitali, and subsequently L. Sandberg-Mørch, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Armati, L. Flynn and S. Noë, acting as Agents)

         Interveners in support of the applicant: Naturschutzbund Deutschland (NABU) eV (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: T. Hohmuth, lawyer); and Föreningen Svensk Sjöfart (Gothenburg, Sweden) (represented by: L. Sandberg-Mørch and J. Buendía Sierra, lawyers)

         Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: initially C. Thorning, and subsequently J. Nymann-Lindegren, acting as Agents, and R. Holdgaard, lawyer)

         Re:

      Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2015) 5023 final of 23 July 2015 on State aid SA.39078 (2014/N) (Denmark) for the financing of the Fehmarn Belt fixed link project (OJ 2015 C 325, p. 5).

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls Commission Decision C(2015) 5023 final of 23 July 2015 on State aid SA.39078 (2014/N) (Denmark) for the financing of the Fehmarn Belt fixed link project (OJ 2015 C 325, p. 5) in so far as the Commission decided not to raise any objections to the measures granted by the Kingdom of Denmark to Femern A/S for the planning, construction and operation of the Fehmarn Belt fixed link;

                  2.

                  Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

                  3.

                  Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Scandlines Danmark ApS and Scandlines Deutschland GmbH;

                  4.

                  Orders the Kingdom of Denmark, Föreningen Svensk Sjöfart and Naturschutzbund Deutschland (NABU) eV to bear their own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 59, 15.2.2016.


title: Case T-631/15: Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Stena Line Scandinavia v Commission (State aid — Public financing of the Fehmarn Belt fixed link rail-road project — Individual aid — Decision not to raise any objections — Decision finding no State aid and declaring the aid compatible with the internal market — Definition of State aid — Adverse effect on competition and effect on trade between Member States — Conditions governing compatibility — Aid to promote the execution of an important project of common European interest — Necessity of the aid — Incentive effect — Proportionality of the aid — Serious difficulties justifying the initiation of the formal investigation procedure — Obligation to state reasons — Communication on State aid to promote the execution of important projects of common European interest)

text:
               4.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/38

      Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Stena Line Scandinavia v Commission
      (Case T-631/15) (1)

      ((State aid - Public financing of the Fehmarn Belt fixed link rail-road project - Individual aid - Decision not to raise any objections - Decision finding no State aid and declaring the aid compatible with the internal market - Definition of State aid - Adverse effect on competition and effect on trade between Member States - Conditions governing compatibility - Aid to promote the execution of an important project of common European interest - Necessity of the aid - Incentive effect - Proportionality of the aid - Serious difficulties justifying the initiation of the formal investigation procedure - Obligation to state reasons - Communication on State aid to promote the execution of important projects of common European interest))
      (2019/C 82/43)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Stena Line Scandinavia AB (Gothenburg, Sweden) (represented by: P. Alexiadis, Solicitor, and L. Sandberg-Mørch, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Armati, L. Flynn and S. Noë, acting as Agents)

         Intervener in support of the applicant: Föreningen Svensk Sjöfart (Gothenburg) (represented by: L. Sandberg-Mørch and J. Buendía Sierra, lawyers)

         Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: initially C. Thorning, and subsequently J. Nymann-Lindegren, acting as Agents, and R. Holdgaard, lawyer)

         Re:

      Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2015) 5023 final of 23 July 2015 on State aid SA.39078 (2014/N) (Denmark) for the financing of the Fehmarn Belt fixed link project (OJ 2015 C 325, p. 5).

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls Commission Decision C(2015) 5023 final of 23 July 2015 on State aid SA.39078 (2014/N) (Denmark) for the financing of the Fehmarn Belt fixed link project (OJ 2015 C 325, p. 5) in so far as the Commission decided not to raise any objections to the measures granted by the Kingdom of Denmark to Femern A/S for the planning, construction and operation of the Fehmarn Belt fixed link;

                  2.

                  Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

                  3.

                  Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Stena Line Scandinavia AB;

                  4.

                  Orders the Kingdom of Denmark and Föreningen Svensk Sjöfart to bear their own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 59, 15.2.2016.


title: Case T-53/16: Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Ryanair and Airport Marketing Services v Commission (State aid — Agreements between the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Nîmes-Uzès-Le Vigan and Ryanair and its subsidiary Airport Marketing Services — Airport services — Marketing services — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Notion of State aid — Imputability to the State — Chamber of Commerce and Industry — Advantage — Private investor test — Recovery — Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Right of access to the file — Right to be heard)

text:
               4.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/39

      Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Ryanair and Airport Marketing Services v Commission
      (Case T-53/16) (1)

      ((State aid - Agreements between the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Nîmes-Uzès-Le Vigan and Ryanair and its subsidiary Airport Marketing Services - Airport services - Marketing services - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Notion of State aid - Imputability to the State - Chamber of Commerce and Industry - Advantage - Private investor test - Recovery - Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Right of access to the file - Right to be heard))
      (2019/C 82/44)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicants: Ryanair DAC, formerly Ryanair Ltd (Dublin, Ireland), Airport Marketing Services Ltd (Dublin) (represented by: G. Berrisch, E. Vahida, I.-G. Metaxas-Maranghidis, lawyers, and B. Byrne, Solicitor)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn and S. Noë, acting as Agents)

         Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Boelaert, S. Petrova and J. Kneale, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking the partial annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2016/633 of 23 July 2014 on State aid SA.33961 (2012/C) (ex 2012/NN) implemented by France in favour of Nîmes-Uzès-Le Vigan Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Veolia Transport Aéroport de Nîmes, Ryanair Limited and Airport Marketing Services Limited (OJ 2016 L 113, p. 32).

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Ryanair DAC and Airport Marketing Services Ltd to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

                  3.

                  Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 145, 25.4.2016.


title: Case T-77/16: Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Ryanair and Airport Marketing Services v Commission (State aid — Agreements concluded with the airline Ryanair and its subsidiary Airport Marketing Services — Airport services — Marketing services — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Notion of State aid — Advantage — Private investor test — Recovery — Selectivity)

text:
               4.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/40

      Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Ryanair and Airport Marketing Services v Commission
      (Case T-77/16) (1)

      ((State aid - Agreements concluded with the airline Ryanair and its subsidiary Airport Marketing Services - Airport services - Marketing services - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Notion of State aid - Advantage - Private investor test - Recovery - Selectivity))
      (2019/C 82/45)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicants: Ryanair DAC, formerly Ryanair Ltd (Dublin, Ireland), Airport Marketing Services Ltd (Dublin) (represented by: G. Berrisch, E. Vahida, I.-G. Metaxas-Maranghidis, lawyers, and B. Byrne, Solicitor)

         Defendant: Commission (represented by: L. Armati, L. Flynn and S. Noë, acting as Agents)

         Interveners in support of the defendant: Republic of Latvia (represented initially by: D. Pelše, J. Treijs-Gigulis and I. Kalniņš, and subsequently by I. Kucina, acting as Agents) and Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Boelaert and S. Petrova, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action under Article 263 TFEU for partial annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2016/152 of 1 October 2014 on State aid SA 27339 (12/C) (ex 11/NN) implemented by Germany for Zweibrücken airport and airlines using the airport (OJ 2016 L 34, p. 68).

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls Article 1(2) of Commission Decision (EU) 2016/152 of 1 October 2014 on State aid SA 27339 (12/C) (ex 11/NN) implemented by Germany for Zweibrücken airport and airlines using the airport, and Articles 3, 4 and 5 of that decision, in so far as they concern Ryanair DAC and Airport Marketing Services Ltd;

                  2.

                  Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Ryanair and Airport Marketing Services;

                  3.

                  Orders the Council of the European Union to pay its own costs;

                  4.

                  Orders the Republic of Latvia to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 165, 10.5.2016.


title: Case T-165/16: Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Ryanair and Airport Marketing Services v Commission (State aid — Agreements concluded with the airline Ryanair and its subsidiary Airport Marketing Services — Airport services — Marketing services — Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Notion of State aid — Advantage — Private investor test — Recovery — Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Access to the file — Right to be heard)

text:
               4.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/41

      Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Ryanair and Airport Marketing Services v Commission
      (Case T-165/16) (1)

      ((State aid - Agreements concluded with the airline Ryanair and its subsidiary Airport Marketing Services - Airport services - Marketing services - Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Notion of State aid - Advantage - Private investor test - Recovery - Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Access to the file - Right to be heard))
      (2019/C 82/46)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicants: Ryanair DAC, formerly Ryanair Ltd (Dublin, Ireland), Airport Marketing Services Ltd (Dublin) (represented by: G. Berrisch, E. Vahida, I.-G. Metaxas-Maranghidis, lawyers, and B. Byrne, Solicitor)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, L. Armati, and S. Noë, acting as Agents)

         Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Boelaert and S. Petrova, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action under Article 263 TFEU for the partial annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2016/287 of 15 October 2014 on State aid SA.26500 — 2012/C (ex 2011/NN, ex CP 227/2008) implemented by Germany for Flugplatz Altenburg-Nobitz GmbH and Ryanair Ltd (OJ 2016 L 59, p. 22).

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Ryanair DAC and Airport Marketing Services Ltd to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

                  3.

                  Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 222, 20.6.2016.


title: Case T-290/16: Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Fruits de Ponent v Commission (Non-contractual liability — Agriculture — Peach and nectarine markets — Disruption during the 2014 season — Russian embargo — Temporary exceptional support measures for producers — Delegated Regulations (EU) Nos 913/2014 and 923/2014 — Rules of law intended to confer rights upon individuals — Duty of diligence and the principle of sound administration — Sufficiently serious breach — Causal link)

text:
               4.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/42

      Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Fruits de Ponent v Commission
      (Case T-290/16) (1)

      ((Non-contractual liability - Agriculture - Peach and nectarine markets - Disruption during the 2014 season - Russian embargo - Temporary exceptional support measures for producers - Delegated Regulations (EU) Nos 913/2014 and 923/2014 - Rules of law intended to confer rights upon individuals - Duty of diligence and the principle of sound administration - Sufficiently serious breach - Causal link))
      (2019/C 82/47)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Applicant: Fruits de Ponent, SCCL (Alcarràs, Spain) (represented by M. Roca Junyent, J. Mier Albert, R. Vallina Hoset and A. Sellés Marco, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by I. Galindo Martín and K. Skelly, and subsequently by I. Galindo Martín, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action pursuant to Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the damage allegedly sustained by three of the applicant’s members on account of acts and omissions of the Commission, in the context of the adoption of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 913/2014 of 21 August 2014 laying down temporary exceptional support measures for producers of peaches and nectarines (OJ 2014 L 248, p. 1) and Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 932/2014 of 29 August 2014 laying down temporary exceptional support measures for producers of certain fruit and vegetables and amending Delegated Regulation (EU) No 913/2014 (OJ 2014 L 259, p. 2).

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Fruits de Ponent, SCCL to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 270, 25.7.2016.


title: Case T-530/16: Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Schubert and Others v Commission (Civil service — Remuneration — Annual adjustment of the remuneration and pensions of officials and other members of staff — Regulations (EU) No 422/2014 and No 423/2014 — Adjustments of remuneration and pensions for 2011 and 2012 — Duty to state reasons — Proportionality — Legitimate expectations — Rules on dialogue between management and workers)

text:
               4.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/43

      Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Schubert and Others v Commission
      (Case T-530/16) (1)

      ((Civil service - Remuneration - Annual adjustment of the remuneration and pensions of officials and other members of staff - Regulations (EU) No 422/2014 and No 423/2014 - Adjustments of remuneration and pensions for 2011 and 2012 - Duty to state reasons - Proportionality - Legitimate expectations - Rules on dialogue between management and workers))
      (2019/C 82/49)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicants: Ludwig Schubert (Overijse, Belgium) and the six other applicants whose names are annexed to the judgment (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz, N. Flandin and S. Rodrigues, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: J. Currall and G. Gattinara, and subsequently G. Gattinara and L. Radu Bouyon, acting as Agents)

         Interveners in support of the defendant: European Parliament (represented by: E. Taneva and M. Ecker, acting as Agents); and Council of the European Union (represented initially by: M. Bauer and M. Veiga, and subsequently M. Bauer and R. Meyer, acting as Agents),

         Re:

      Action under Article 270 TFEU for (i) annulment of the decisions of the Commission to apply to the applicants’ salaries or pensions the adjustment of 0 % for 2011, provided for by Regulation (EU) No 422/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 adjusting with effect from 1 July 2011 the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the European Union and the correction coefficients applied thereto (OJ 2014 L 129, p. 5), and the adjustment of 0,8 % for 2012, provided for by Regulation (EU) No 423/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 adjusting with effect from 1 July 2012 the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the European Union and the correction coefficients applied thereto (OJ 2014 L 129, p. 12), and (ii) compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicants as a result of those decisions.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

                  3.

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

         (1)  OJ C 96, 23.3.2015 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under Case No F-4/15 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).


title: Joined Cases T-543/16 and T-544/16: Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Carpenito and Others v Council (Civil service — Remuneration — Annual adjustment of the remuneration and pensions of officials and other EU staff — Regulations (EU) No 422/2014 and No 423/2014 — Adjustments of salaries and pensions for the years 2011 and 2012 — Duty to state reasons — Proportionality — Legitimate expectations — Rules on social dialogue)

text:
               4.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/44

      Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Carpenito and Others v Council
      (Joined Cases T-543/16 and T-544/16) (1)

      ((Civil service - Remuneration - Annual adjustment of the remuneration and pensions of officials and other EU staff - Regulations (EU) No 422/2014 and No 423/2014 - Adjustments of salaries and pensions for the years 2011 and 2012 - Duty to state reasons - Proportionality - Legitimate expectations - Rules on social dialogue))
      (2019/C 82/50)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant in Case T-543/16: Renzo Carpenito (Overijse, Belgium) (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

         Applicants in Case T-544/16: Maria Kannellopoulou (Cranves-Sales, France), José Carlos Lechado García (Brussels, Belgium), Bernd Loescher (Rhode-Saint-Genèse, Belgium), Evelina Milenova (Brussels) (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

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

         Intervener in support of the defendant: European Parliament (represented by: M. Ecker and E. Taneva, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action under Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the Council decisions to apply to the applicants’ salaries or pensions the 0 % adjustment for the year 2011 provided for in Regulation (EU) No 422/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014, adjusting with effect from 1 July 2011 the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the European Union and the correction coefficients applied thereto (OJ 2014 L 129, p. 5), and the 0,8 % adjustment for the year 2012, provided for in Regulation (EU) No 423/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 adjusting with effect from 1 July 2012 the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the European Union and the correction coefficients applied thereto (OJ 2014 L 129, p. 12), and, secondly, compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicants as a result of those decisions.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the actions;

                  2.

                  Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union;

                  3.

                  Orders the European Parliament to pay its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 146, 4.5.2015 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under Case No F-31/15 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).


title: Case T-591/16: Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 –Wahlström v Frontex (Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Frontex — Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract — Article 8 of the CEOS — Duty of care — Use of an annulled appraisal report — Manifest error of assessment — Liability — Costs — Equity — Article 135(1) of the Rules of Procedure)

text:
               4.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/45

      Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 –Wahlström v Frontex
      (Case T-591/16) (1)

      ((Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Frontex - Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract - Article 8 of the CEOS - Duty of care - Use of an annulled appraisal report - Manifest error of assessment - Liability - Costs - Equity - Article 135(1) of the Rules of Procedure))
      (2019/C 82/51)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Kari Wahlström (Espoo (Finland)) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) (represented by: H. Caniard and S. Drew, acting as Agents, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

         Re:

      Action under Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of 26 June 2015 not to renew the applicant’s contract as a member of the temporary staff of Frontex and, secondly, compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant due to the loss of salary consequent thereon and the loss of corresponding pension rights.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders each party to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 251, 11.7.2016 (case initially registered at the European Union Civil Service Tribunal as Case F-21/16 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).


title: Case T-672/16: Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — C=Holdings v EUIPO — Trademarkers (C=commodore) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark C=commodore — Application for invalidation of the effects of the international registration — Article 158(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 198(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001) — No genuine use concerning certain goods and services covered by the international registration — Presence of proper reasons for non-use)

text:
               4.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/47

      Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — C=Holdings v EUIPO — Trademarkers (C=commodore)
      (Case T-672/16) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark C=commodore - Application for invalidation of the effects of the international registration - Article 158(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 198(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001) - No genuine use concerning certain goods and services covered by the international registration - Presence of proper reasons for non-use))
      (2019/C 82/53)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: C=Holdings BV (Oldenzaal, Netherlands) (represented by: initially P. Maeyaert and K. Neefs and then P. Maeyaert and J. Muyldermans, 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: Trademarkers NV (Antwerp, Belgium)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 July 2016 (Case R 2585/2015-4), relating to revocation proceedings between Trademarkers and C=Holdings.

         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 13 July 2016 (Case R 2585/2015-4), relating to revocation proceedings between Trademarkers NV and C=Holdings BV, in so far as the Board of Appeal dismissed the appeal of C=Holdings as regards the existence of proper reasons for non-use of the international registration of which it is the proprietor;

                  2.

                  Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 410, 7.11.2016.


title: Case T-689/16: Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Pipiliagkas v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Assignment — Decision with retroactive effect — Article 22a of the Staff Regulations — Authority lacking competence — Liability — Compensation in respect of material and non-material harm)

text:
               4.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/47

      Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Pipiliagkas v Commission
      (Case T-689/16) (1)

      ((Civil service - Officials - Assignment - Decision with retroactive effect - Article 22a of the Staff Regulations - Authority lacking competence - Liability - Compensation in respect of material and non-material harm))
      (2019/C 82/54)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Nikolaos Pipiliagkas (Brussels, Belgium) (represented initially by J.-N. Louis and N. de Montigny and subsequently by J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Gattinara and subsequently by G. Gattinara and L. Radu Bouyon, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action on the basis of Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of 22 December 2015 of the Head of Unit ‘Career and performance management’ of the Commission’s Directorate-General for Human Resources and Security, concerning the reassignment of the applicant with retroactive effect, and, secondly, compensation for the material and non-material harm which he claims to have suffered.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls the decision of 22 December 2015 of the Head of Unit ‘Career and performance management’ of the Commission’s Directorate-General for Human Resources and Security, concerning the reassignment of Mr Nikolaos Pipiliagkas with effect from 1 January 2013;

                  2.

                  Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

                  3.

                  Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and half of the costs of Mr Pipiliagkas;

                  4.

                  Orders Mr Pipiliagkas to bear half of his own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 441, 28.11.2016.


title: Case T-743/16 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — CX v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Disciplinary measure — Removal from post — Rights of the defence — Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials — Article 22(1) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations — Articles 41 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Liability — Actual damage — Causal link)

text:
               4.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/48

      Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — CX v Commission
      (Case T-743/16 RENV) (1)

      ((Civil service - Officials - Disciplinary measure - Removal from post - Rights of the defence - Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials - Article 22(1) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations - Articles 41 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Liability - Actual damage - Causal link))
      (2019/C 82/55)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: CX (represented by É. Boigelot, lawyer.)

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

         Re:

      Action pursuant to Article 270 TFUE seeking, first, annulment of the Decision of 16 October 2013 in which the Commission found that the applicant was guilty of two instances of serious misconduct and, consequently, removed him from his post without reduction pro tempore to his entitlement to a retirement pension and, second, compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant on account of that decision.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls the decision of 16 October 2013 by which the Commission removed CX from his post without reduction pro tempore to his entitlement to a retirement pension;

                  2.

                  Dismisses the action as to the remainder.

                  3.

                  Orders each party to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 85, 22.3.2014 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under Case No F-5/14 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).


title: Case T-830/16: Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Monolith Frost v EUIPO — Dovgan (PLOMBIR) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark PLOMBIR — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Examination of the facts — Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Evidence submitted for the first time before the General Court)

text:
               4.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/49

      Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Monolith Frost v EUIPO — Dovgan (PLOMBIR)
      (Case T-830/16) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark PLOMBIR - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Examination of the facts - Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Evidence submitted for the first time before the General Court))
      (2019/C 82/56)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Monolith Frost GmbH (Leopoldshöhe, Germany) (represented by: E. Liebich and S. Labesius, lawyers)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Dovgan GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: J.-C. Plate and R. Kaase, lawyers)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 September 2016 (Case R 1812/2015-4) relating to invalidity proceedings between Monolith Frost and Dovgan.

         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 22 September 2016 (Case R 1812/2015-4);

                  2.

                  Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Monolith Frost GmbH, including the costs necessarily incurred by Monolith Frost for the purpose of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO;

                  3.

                  Orders Dovgan GmbH to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.


title: Case T-247/17: Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Azarov v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Ukraine — Freezing of funds — List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and of economic resources — Maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list — Right to property — Right to pursue an economic activity — Manifest error of assessment)

text:
               4.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/50

      Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Azarov v Council
      (Case T-247/17) (1)

      ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Ukraine - Freezing of funds - List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and of economic resources - Maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list - Right to property - Right to pursue an economic activity - Manifest error of assessment))
      (2019/C 82/57)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Mykola Yanovych Azarov (Kiev, Ukraine) (represented by: G. Lansky and A. Egger, lawyers)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix and F. Naert, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/381 of 3 March 2017 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2017 L 58, p. 34), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/374 of 3 March 2017 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2017 L 58, p. 1), in so far as the applicant’s name has been maintained on the list of persons, entities and bodies covered by those restrictive measures.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Mr Mykola Yanovych Azarov to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 195, 19.6.2017.


title: Case T-274/17: Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Monster Energy v EUIPO — Bösel (MONSTER DIP) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark MONSTER DIP — Earlier EU word and figurative marks and unregistered sign used in the course of trade, all including the word element ‘monster’ — Relative grounds for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — No likelihood of misleading association — Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation 2017/1001) — No likelihood of dilution of the reputation of the earlier mark — Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001))

text:
               4.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/50

      Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Monster Energy v EUIPO — Bösel (MONSTER DIP)
      (Case T-274/17) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark MONSTER DIP - Earlier EU word and figurative marks and unregistered sign used in the course of trade, all including the word element ‘monster’ - Relative grounds for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - No likelihood of misleading association - Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation 2017/1001) - No likelihood of dilution of the reputation of the earlier mark - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001)))
      (2019/C 82/58)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Monster Energy Company (Corona, California, United States) (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

         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: Marco Bösel (Bad Fallingbostel, Germany)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 December 2016 (Case R 1062/2016-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Monster Energy Company and Marco Bösel.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Monster Energy Company to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 221, 10.7.2017.


title: Case T-537/17: Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — De Loecker v EEAS (Civil service — EEAS — Temporary agents — Psychological harassment — Request for assistance — Rejection of the request — Right to be heard — Liability)

text:
               4.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/51

      Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — De Loecker v EEAS
      (Case T-537/17) (1)

      ((Civil service - EEAS - Temporary agents - Psychological harassment - Request for assistance - Rejection of the request - Right to be heard - Liability))
      (2019/C 82/59)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Stéphane De Loecker (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: initially J. N. Louis and N. de Montigny, then J. N. Louis, lawyers)

         Defendant: European External Action Service (represented by: S. Marquardt and R. Spac, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application on the basis of 270 TFEU and seeking, firstly, the annulment of the decision of the EEAS of 10 October 2016 rejecting the applicant’s request for assistance made under Articles 12a and 24 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and, secondly, compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls the Decision of the European External Action Service (EEAS) of 10 October 2016 rejecting Mr Stéphane De Loecker request for assistance made under Articles 12a and 24 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union;

                  2.

                  Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

                  3.

                  Orders the EEAS to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 347, 16.10.2017.


title: Case T-609/17: Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2018 — France v Commission (EAGF — Expenditure excluded from financing — Expenditure incurred by France — Export refunds on poultry meat — Flat-rate financial correction — Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EU) No 1306/2013 — Sound, fair and merchantable quality — Checks — Proportionality)

text:
               4.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/52

      Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2018 — France v Commission
      (Case T-609/17) (1)

      ((EAGF - Expenditure excluded from financing - Expenditure incurred by France - Export refunds on poultry meat - Flat-rate financial correction - Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EU) No 1306/2013 - Sound, fair and merchantable quality - Checks - Proportionality))
      (2019/C 82/60)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: French Republic (represented by: F. Alabrune, D. Colas, B. Fodda and E. de Moustier, acting as Agents)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Lewis and D. Bianchi, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action under Article 263 TFEU for annulment in part of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/1144 of 26 June 2017 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2017 L 165, p. 37), in so far as it excludes payments made by the French Republic under the EAGF in the amount of EUR 120 901 216,61.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 382, 13.11.2017.


title: Case T-743/17: Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2018 — Bischoff v EUIPO — Miroglio Fashion (CARACTÈRE) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark CARACTÈRE — Absolute grounds for refusal — No descriptive character — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

text:
               4.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/53

      Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2018 — Bischoff v EUIPO — Miroglio Fashion (CARACTÈRE)
      (Case T-743/17) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark CARACTÈRE - Absolute grounds for refusal - No descriptive character - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
      (2019/C 82/62)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Bischoff GmbH (Muggensturm, Germany) (represented by: D. Régnier, lawyer)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Miroglio Fashion Srl (Alba, Italy) (represented by: O. Vanner, lawyer)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 July 2017 (Case R 328/2016-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Bischoff and Miroglio Fashion.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Bischoff GmbH to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2018.


title: Case T-821/17: Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2018 — Vitromed v EUIPO — Vitromed Healthcare (VITROMED Germany) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark VITROMED Germany — Earlier EU word mark Vitromed — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

text:
               4.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/53

      Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2018 — Vitromed v EUIPO — Vitromed Healthcare (VITROMED Germany)
      (Case T-821/17) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark VITROMED Germany - Earlier EU word mark Vitromed - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
      (2019/C 82/63)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Vitromed GmbH (Jena, Germany) (represented by: M. Linß, lawyer)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Vitromed Healthcare (Jaipur, India) (represented by: J. Schmidt, lawyer)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 September 2017 (Case R 2402/2016-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Vitromed Healthcare and Vitromed.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Vitromed GmbH to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 52, 12.2.2018.


title: Case T-76/18: Judgment of the General Court 13 December 2018 — CN v Parliament (Civil service — Accredited parliamentary assistants — Article 24 of the Staff Regulations — Request for assistance — Article 12a of the Staff Regulations — Psychological harassment — Advisory Committee dealing with harassment complaints between Accredited Parliamentary Assistants and Members of the European Parliament and its prevention at the workplace — Decision rejecting the request for assistance — Right to be heard — Principle of audi alteram partem — Refusal to disclose the opinion of the Advisory Committee and the minutes of the hearing of witnesses — Refusal of the defendant institution to comply with a measure of inquiry of the General Court)

text:
               4.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/54

      Judgment of the General Court 13 December 2018 — CN v Parliament
      (Case T-76/18) (1)

      ((Civil service - Accredited parliamentary assistants - Article 24 of the Staff Regulations - Request for assistance - Article 12a of the Staff Regulations - Psychological harassment - Advisory Committee dealing with harassment complaints between Accredited Parliamentary Assistants and Members of the European Parliament and its prevention at the workplace - Decision rejecting the request for assistance - Right to be heard - Principle of audi alteram partem - Refusal to disclose the opinion of the Advisory Committee and the minutes of the hearing of witnesses - Refusal of the defendant institution to comply with a measure of inquiry of the General Court))
      (2019/C 82/64)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: CN (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz and A. Tymen, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: D. Boytha and E. Taneva, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application based on Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of the Parliament of 20 March 2017 by which the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment of that institution rejected the request for assistance made by the applicant on 13 February 2013 and, second, compensation for the loss he has allegedly suffered.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls the decision of the European Parliament of 20 March 2017, by which the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment of that institution rejected the request for assistance made by CN on 13 February 2013;

                  2.

                  Orders the Parliament to pay CN, in respect of non-material harm suffered, an amount of EUR 8 500;

                  3.

                  Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

                  4.

                  Orders the Parliament to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 134, 16.4.2018.


title: Case T-83/18: Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — CH v Parliament (Civil service — Accredited parliamentary assistants — Article 24 of the Staff Regulations — Request for assistance — Article 12a of the Staff Regulations — Psychological harassment — Advisory Committee dealing with harassment complaints between Accredited Parliamentary Assistants and Members of the European Parliament and its prevention at the workplace — Decision rejecting the request for assistance — Right to be heard — Principle of audi alteram partem — Refusal to disclose the opinion of the Advisory Committee and the minutes of the hearing of witnesses — Refusal of the defendant institution to comply with a measure of inquiry of the General Court)

text:
               4.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/55

      Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — CH v Parliament
      (Case T-83/18) (1)

      ((Civil service - Accredited parliamentary assistants - Article 24 of the Staff Regulations - Request for assistance - Article 12a of the Staff Regulations - Psychological harassment - Advisory Committee dealing with harassment complaints between Accredited Parliamentary Assistants and Members of the European Parliament and its prevention at the workplace - Decision rejecting the request for assistance - Right to be heard - Principle of audi alteram partem - Refusal to disclose the opinion of the Advisory Committee and the minutes of the hearing of witnesses - Refusal of the defendant institution to comply with a measure of inquiry of the General Court))
      (2019/C 82/65)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: CH (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz and A. Tymen, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: D. Boytha and E. Taneva, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application based on Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of the Parliament of 20 March 2017 by which the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment of that institution rejected the request for assistance made by the applicant on 22 December 2011 and, second, compensation for the loss she has allegedly suffered.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls the decision of the European Parliament of 20 March 2017, by which the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment of that institution rejected the request for assistance made by CH on 22 December 2011;

                  2.

                  Orders the Parliament to pay CH, in respect of non-material harm suffered, an amount of EUR 8 500;

                  3.

                  Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

                  4.

                  Orders the Parliament to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 134, 16.4.2018.


title: Case T-94/18: Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Multifit v EUIPO (fit+fun) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark fit+fun — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctiveness — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

text:
               4.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/55

      Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Multifit v EUIPO (fit+fun)
      (Case T-94/18) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark fit+fun - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctiveness - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
      (2019/C 82/66)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Multifit Tiernahrungs GmbH (Krefeld, Germany) (represented by: N. Weber and L. Thiel, lawyers)

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

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 December 2017 (Case R 847/2017-1) concerning the registration of the word mark fit+fun as an EU trade mark.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Multifit Tiernahrungs GmbH to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 134, 16.4.2018.


title: Case T-102/18: Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Knauf v EUIPO (upgrade your personality) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark upgrade your personality — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Advertising slogan — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

text:
               4.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/56

      Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Knauf v EUIPO (upgrade your personality)
      (Case T-102/18) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark upgrade your personality - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Advertising slogan - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
      (2019/C 82/68)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

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

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

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 December 2017 (Case R 1011/2017–4) concerning an application for registration of the word sign upgrade your personality as an EU trade mark.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Martin Knauf to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

         (1)  OJ C 134, 16.4.2018.


title: Case T-745/18: Action brought on 20 December 2018 — Covestro Deutschland v Commission

text:
               4.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/57

      Action brought on 20 December 2018 — Covestro Deutschland v Commission
      (Case T-745/18)
      (2019/C 82/69)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Covestro Deutschland AG (Leverkusen, Germany) (represented by: M. Küper, J. Otter, C. Anger and M. Goldberg, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul Commission Decision C(2018) 3166 final of 28 May 2018 on aid scheme SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) implemented by Germany for baseload consumers under Paragraph 19 of the Stromnetzentgeltverordnung (Ordinance on Electricity Network Charges; ‘the StromNEV’), in particular the classification of the full exemption of baseload consumers from network charges in 2012 and 2013 as aid, the finding that it is incompatible with the internal market and the order for immediate recovery from the beneficiaries pursuant to the minimum charge rule under the second sentence of Paragraph 19(2) of the StromNEV in the version of 3 September 2010, and

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The action is based on the following pleas in law.

                  1.

                  Unreasonable length of the proceedings

                              —

                              In the context of the first plea in law, the applicant claims that the length of the proceedings of 62 months exceeds by more than double the period set out in Article 9(6) of the Aid Procedure Regulation. (1)

                  2.

                  The exemption from network charges does not constitute aid under Article 107(1) TFEU

                              —

                              In the context of the second plea in law, it is submitted that there is no favourable treatment, since appropriate consideration is given as a result of the network-stabilising effect of the baseload consumers. Furthermore, the exemption was not financed through State resources.

                  3.

                  Compatibility with the internal market (justification, Article 107(3) TFEU)

                              —

                              In the context of the third plea in law, it is claimed that the full exemption of baseload consumers remedies a serious disturbance in the German economy. Particularly energy-intensive industries should remain competitive and be deterred from moving abroad.

                  4.

                  Unlawfulness of the order for recovery

                              —

                              In the context of the fourth plea in law, the applicant submits that the recovery of a minimum charge in the amount of 20 % of the published network charges with reference to the version of Paragraph 19(2) of the StromNEV applicable until 3 August 2011 is arbitrary and at variance with the principle of non-discrimination.

                              —

                              It is further claimed that only the determination of the network charges by means of the physical path ensures the observance of the cost-causality principle and the payment of reasonable and non-discriminatory network charges.

                              —

                              The recovery order also infringes the principle of non-discrimination in that the Commission failed to take into account the transitional arrangement in Paragraph 32(3) of the StromNEV.

                              —

                              Lastly, it is claimed that baseload consumers and atypical network users within the meaning of the first sentence of Paragraph 19(2) of the StromNEV differ substantially. The fact that both groups of network users, notwithstanding their differences, have to pay a minimum charge in the amount of 20 % is not objectively justified.

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


title: Case T-750/18: Action brought on 21 December 2018 — Briois v Parliament

text:
               4.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/58

      Action brought on 21 December 2018 — Briois v Parliament
      (Case T-750/18)
      (2019/C 82/70)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Steeve Briois (Hénin-Beaumont, France) (represented by: F. Wagner, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Parliament

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the decision of the European Parliament of 24 October 2018 on the request for waiver of the immunity of Steeve Briois (2018/2075 IMM) to adopt the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs A8-0349/2018;

                  —

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

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 8 of Protocol No 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union (‘the Protocol’), in so far as the wording used by Mr Briois, which has given rise to criminal proceedings in his Member State of origin, constitutes the expression of an opinion in the performance of parliamentary duties within the meaning of that provision.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 9 of the Protocol, in so far as the Parliament misconstrued both the letter and the spirit of that provision by adopting the decision to waive the immunity of Mr Briois and thus vitiated that decision.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging breach of the principles of equal treatment and of good administration.
                  In the first place, the applicant claims that the Parliament has infringed the principle of equal treatment in his regard by treating him differently from other Members of Parliament in comparable situations and that the Parliament has therefore also infringed the principle of good administration under which the competent institution is required to examine carefully and impartially all the relevant aspects of each individual case.
                  In the second place, the applicant claims that there is a body of evidence supporting the conclusion that there is a clear case of fumus persecutionis against him.


title: Case T-758/18: Action brought on 21 December 2018 — ABLV Bank v SRB

text:
               4.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/59

      Action brought on 21 December 2018 — ABLV Bank v SRB
      (Case T-758/18)
      (2019/C 82/71)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: ABLV Bank AS (Riga, Latvia) (represented by: O. Behrends, M. Kirchner and L. Feddern, lawyers)

         Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the decision of the SRB of 17 October 2018 with respect to ABLV Bank as regards the SRB’s refusal to recalculate and to repay that bank’s ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund;

                  —

                  order the defendant to bear the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging that the SRB failed to give sufficient weight to the pro rata temporis nature of Fund contributions.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging that the SRB failed to take into account the SRB’s own express recognition that Fund contributions are refundable on a pro rata temporis basis.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging that the SRB failed to take into account the express recognition in Article 12(1) of Commission Delegated Regulation 2015/63 (1) that only partial payments are owed if the conditions are met only during part of the relevant year.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging that the SRB erroneously relied on Article 70(4) of Regulation 806/2014. (2)

                  5.

                  Fifth plea in law, alleging that the SRB relied on an erroneous interpretation of Article 12(2) of Commission Delegated Regulation 2015/63.

                  6.

                  Sixth plea in law, alleging that the SRB violated the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations.

                  7.

                  Seventh plea in law, alleging that the SRB violated the principle of proportionality.

                  8.

                  Eighth plea in law, alleging that the SRB violated the nemo auditur principle.

                  9.

                  Ninth plea in law, alleging that the SRB failed to take into account the relevance of its prior actions.

                  10.

                  Tenth plea in law, alleging that the SRB violated Articles 16 and 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

         (1)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 of 21 October 2014 supplementing Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to ex ante contributions to resolution financing arrangements (OJ 2015, L 11, p. 44).

         (2)  Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (OJ 2014 L 225, p. 1).


title: Case T-2/19: Action brought on 4 January 2019 — Algebris (UK) and Anchorage Capital Group v SRB

text:
               4.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/60

      Action brought on 4 January 2019 — Algebris (UK) and Anchorage Capital Group v SRB
      (Case T-2/19)
      (2019/C 82/72)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicants: Algebris (UK) Ltd (London, United Kingdom) and Anchorage Capital Group LLC (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: T. Soames, lawyer, R. East, Solicitor, N. Chesaites, and D. Mackersie, Barristers)

         Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

         Form of order sought

      The applicants claim that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the SRB’s decision to the effect that ex-post definitive valuations of Banco Popular Español S.A. were not required pursuant to Article 20(11) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014; (1)

                  —

                  order the SRB to pay the applicants’ legal costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law.

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging that the SRB’s decision that ex-post definitive valuations of Banco Popular Español S.A. were not required pursuant to Article 20(11) of Regulation 806/2014 rests on an error of law in breach of Article 20(11) and/or Article 20(12) of that Regulation, which requires an ex-post definitive valuation in circumstances where a provisional valuation that did not meet the requirements of Article 20(1) and (4) to (9) of Regulation 806/2014 is relied on to take resolution measures.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging that the SRB committed manifest errors of assessment in its application of Article 20(11) of Regulation 806/2014 in the contested decision, because, in adopting the contested decision, the SRB proceeded on the erroneous basis that no ex-post definitive valuations are required in this case.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging that, insofar as the contested decision implies a decision by the SRB not to increase the value of the EUR 1 consideration paid by Banco Santander, S.A., this amounts to an error of law and/or manifest error of assessment in breach of Article 20(11) and (12) of Regulation 806/2014.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging that the SRB has breached its obligation to provide reasons for the contested decision, contrary to Article 296 TFEU.

         (1)  Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (OJ 2014 L 225, p. 1).


title: Case T-5/19: Action brought on 4 January 2019 — Clatronic International/EUIPO (PROFI CARE)

text:
               4.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/61

      Action brought on 4 January 2019 — Clatronic International/EUIPO (PROFI CARE)
      (Case T-5/19)
      (2019/C 82/73)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Clatronic International GmbH (Kempen, Germany) (represented by: O. Löffel, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative sign PROFI CARE — Application for registration No 1 372 358

         Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 October 2018 in Case R 504/2018-1

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law

                  —

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

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.