title: Case C-509/18: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court (Ireland) made on 6 August 2018 — Minister for Justice and Equality v PF

text:
               8.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 364/8

      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court (Ireland) made on 6 August 2018 — Minister for Justice and Equality v PF
      (Case C-509/18)
      (2018/C 364/08)
      Language of the case: English

         Referring court

      Supreme Court

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Minister for Justice and Equality

         Defendant: PF

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Are the criteria according to which to decide whether a public prosecutor designated as an issuing judicial authority for the purposes of Art. 6(1) [of the Framework Decision (1)] is a judicial authority within the autonomous meaning of that phrase in Art. 6(1) of the Framework Decision of 2002 on European arrest warrant and surrender proceedings between Member States that (1) the public prosecutor is independent from the executive and (2) considered in his own legal system to administer justice or participate in the administration of justice?

                  2.

                  If not, what are the criteria according to which a national court should determine whether a public prosecutor who is designated as an issuing judicial authority for the purposes of Art. 6(1) of the Framework Decision is a judicial authority for the purposes of Art. 6(1)?

                  3.

                  Insofar as the criteria include a requirement that the public prosecutor administer justice or participate in the administration of justice is that to be determined in accordance with the status he holds in his own legal system or in accordance with certain objective criteria? If, objective criteria what are those criteria?

                  4.

                  Is the Public Prosecutor of the Republic of Lithuania a judicial authority within the autonomous meaning of that phrase in Art. 6(1) of the Framework Decision of 2002 on European arrest warrant and surrender proceedings between Member States?

         (1)  Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States — Statements made by certain Member States on the adoption of the Framework Decision (Framework Decision) (OJ 2002, L 190, p. 1).


title: Case T-470/18: Action brought on 31 July 2018 — Telenet v Commission

text:
               8.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 364/17

      Action brought on 31 July 2018 — Telenet v Commission
      (Case T-470/18)
      (2018/C 364/18)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Telenet (Mechelen, Belgium) (represented by: Y. Desmedt and E. Monard, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested act in its entirety; and

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay the full costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      This action is directed against Commission Decision C(2018) 3410 final of 25 May 2018, adopted in accordance with Article 7(3) of Directive 2002/21/EC (1), concerning case BE/2018/2073: Wholesale local access provided at a fixed location in Belgium, case BE/2018/2074: Wholesale central access provided at a fixed location for mass-market products in Belgium and case BE/2018/2075: Wholesale TV broadcasting in Belgium.
      In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Article 7(4) of Directive 2002/21/EC and abused its discretion by not opening a Phase II investigation.

                              —

                              In this regard, the applicant submits that the Commission expressed multiple concerns with the market definition of the Belgian national regulatory authority.

                              —

                              The applicant further claims that, in accordance with Article 7(4) of Directive 2002/21/EC, the Commission must initiate a Phase II review in case it has serious doubts with a proposed regulatory measure.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to state the reasons for its finding that the chosen market definition does not change the regulatory outcome.

                              —

                              In this regard, the applicant submits that the Commission erred in law where it considered that it could decide not to open a Phase II investigation on the ground that the market definition which the Commission considered more appropriate would allegedly lead to the same regulatory outcome as the one being proposed in the draft measure. The appropriate market definitions would necessarily have altered the legal position of the applicant.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to comply with the procedural safeguards of Directive 2002/21/EC.

                              —

                              In this regard, the applicant puts forward that the draft measure that the Belgian national regulatory authority submitted to the Commission contained a market definition that had not been subjected to a public consultation, as required by Articles 6 and 16(6) of Directive 2002/21/EC.

                              —

                              The applicant further claims that the Commission infringed procedural requirements by commenting on a proposal that had not been subjected to a public consultation.

         (1)  Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33).


title: Case C-428/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia (Spain) lodged on 28 June 2018 — Jörg Paul Konrad Fritz Bode v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social and Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social

text:
               8.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 364/2

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia (Spain) lodged on 28 June 2018 — Jörg Paul Konrad Fritz Bode v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social and Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social
      (Case C-428/18)
      (2018/C 364/02)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Referring court

      Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: Jörg Paul Konrad Fritz Bode

         Respondents: Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social and Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social

         Question referred

      Must Article 48 TFEU be interpreted as meaning that it precludes national legislation which requires as a condition for access to an early retirement pension that the amount of the pension to be received must be higher than the minimum pension which would be due to the person concerned under that same national legislation, the term ‘pension to be received’ being interpreted as the actual pension from the competent Member State (in this case, Spain) alone, without also taking into account the actual pension which that person may receive through another benefit of the same kind from one or more other Member States?


title: Case T-471/18: Action brought on 2 August 2018 — WV v EEAS

text:
               8.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 364/18

      Action brought on 2 August 2018 — WV v EEAS
      (Case T-471/18)
      (2018/C 364/19)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

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

         Defendant: European External Action Service (EEAS)

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the decision of 27 November 2017, reference ‘eeas.ba.hr.3(2017)6459331’, delivered by [confidential] (1) imposing on the applicant a salary deduction in the amount of 72 calendar days;

                  —

                  annul, in so far as necessary, the explicit rejection decision of 2 May 2018 (‘eeas.ba.hr.3/ED/ld(2018)2309062’) following the applicant’s complaint of 3 January 2018;

                  —

                  decide that the sums that must be reimbursed to the applicant following that annulment are to be increased by default interest calculated at the rate of 5 % per annum or a different rate to be set by the Court, calculated on the day on which actual recovery takes place and according to the dates of the various deductions made;

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay all the costs, in accordance with Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law alleging infringement of Articles 1e(2), 12, 12a, 21, 25, 26, 55 and 60 of the Staff Regulations, of the duty of care, of the principle of good administration and infringement of Articles 1 and 2 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations and of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1). She also invokes infringement of, inter alia, Articles 41, 47 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, of the European Convention on Human Rights and of the right to a fair hearing, infringement of Article 296 TFEU and abuse of rights and abuse of process, as well as a flagrant breach of the principle of legitimate expectations and of equality of arms. Lastly, the applicant claims infringement of the principle which requires the authorities to hand down decisions only on the basis of legally permissible grounds, by which is meant grounds which are relevant and not vitiated by manifest errors of assessment, fact or law, as well as infringement of the principles of proportionality, audi alteram partem and legal certainty, in addition to infringement of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

         (1)  Confidential data omitted.


title: Case T-482/18: Action brought on 10 August 2018 — XF v Commission

text:
               8.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 364/19

      Action brought on 10 August 2018 — XF v Commission
      (Case T-482/18)
      (2018/C 364/20)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: XF (represented by: J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the decision of 2 October 2017 refusing to grant him installation allowance when he moved to and took up his duties at EEAS headquarters, and

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 20 of the Staff Regulations and Article 5 of Annex VII to those regulations.


title: Case T-375/18: Action brought on 19 June 2018 — Gollnisch v Parliament

text:
               8.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 364/12

      Action brought on 19 June 2018 — Gollnisch v Parliament
      (Case T-375/18)
      (2018/C 364/12)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Bruno Gollnisch (Villiers-le-Mahieu, France) (represented by: B. Bonnefoy-Claudet, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Parliament

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  declare that the decision of the President of the Delegation for Relations with Japan, notified on 20 March 2018, is unlawful;

                  —

                  annul that decision;

                  —

                  annul both implicit decisions rejecting the complaints submitted to the President of the European Parliament and the Secretary-General of the European Parliament on 2 May 2018;

                  —

                  revoke the acts and measures adopted after the abovementioned acts;

                  —

                  award the applicant the amount of EUR 1 in compensation for the non-material harm he suffered as a result of his being excluded from the parliamentary visit and the failure to have regard to the compensation to which he was entitled;

                  —

                  also award him the amount of EUR 3 500 in compensation for the expenses incurred in preparing this action, and

                  —

                  order the European Parliament to pay all costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law: infringement of the implementing provisions governing the work of delegations and missions of Members of the European Parliament outside the European Union.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law: breach of the right to an effective remedy and to good administration.


title: Case T-501/18: Action brought on 22 August 2018 — Currency One v EUIPO — Cinkiarz.pl (CINKCIARZ)

text:
               8.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 364/20

      Action brought on 22 August 2018 — Currency One v EUIPO — Cinkiarz.pl (CINKCIARZ)
      (Case T-501/18)
      (2018/C 364/21)
      Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

         Parties

         Applicant: Currency One S.A. (Poznań, Poland) (represented by: P. Szmidt, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cinkiarz.pl sp. z o. o. (Zielona Góra, Poland)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

         Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark CINKCIARZ — European Union trade mark No 13 678 991

         Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 June 2018 in Case R 2598/2017-5

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay the costs, including the costs of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

         Plea in law

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 59(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, read in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) and (c) thereof.


title: Case T-422/18: Action brought on 6 July 2018 — RATP v Commission

text:
               8.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 364/14

      Action brought on 6 July 2018 — RATP v Commission
      (Case T-422/18)
      (2018/C 364/15)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Régie autonome des transports parisiens (RATP) (Paris, France) (represented by: E. Morgan de Rivery, P. Delelis and C. Lavin, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, the Commission Decision of 5 March 2018 granting access to documents included within the request for access to documents registered under reference GestDem 2017/7530 in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents;

                  —

                  in any event, order the Commission to pay the entirety of the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringes Article 4(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43), and Article 5(3)(b) and Article 5(6) of the section relating to provisions implementing Regulation No 1049/2001 of the Commission’s Code of Conduct annexed to the latter’s Rules of Procedures [C(2000) 3614 (JO 2000 L 308, p. 26)], in so far as the Commission could not communicate the documents at issue without informing the applicant.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringes the principle of sound administration set out in Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, of its duty of due diligence as set out in the relevant case-law, and therefore, of the objective of Regulation No 1049/2001, according to Article 1(c) of which that regulation seeks to ‘promote good administrative practises on access to documents.’

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringes the first, second and third indents of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001, in so far as it refused to apply the exceptions which were nevertheless invoked by the applicant. This plea is divided into three parts:

                              —

                              first part, alleging that the Commission infringes the third indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001, in so far as it deliberately refused to apply the general presumption of confidentiality applicable to documents;

                              —

                              second part, alleging that the Commission infringes the second indent of Article 4(20 of Regulation No 1049/2001, in so far as it refused to take into consideration the interference with judicial procedures which the communication of the documents effected;

                              —

                              third part, alleging that the Commission infringes the first indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001, Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 339 TFEU, in so far as it failed to take into consideration the applicant’s commercial, financial and strategic interests.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringes Article 4(1)(b) and Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1), in so far as it refused to conceal the identity of the individual who was the author of the documents at issue.

                  5.

                  Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringes the requirement to state reasons imposed on it in accordance with Article 296 TFEU, in so far as it failed to inform the applicant, whether before or after the dispatch of the documents, of the reasons which could have justified its wish to dispatch those documents.


title: Case T-437/18: Action brought on 13 July 2018 — Tilly-Sabco v Commission

text:
               8.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 364/15

      Action brought on 13 July 2018 — Tilly-Sabco v Commission
      (Case T-437/18)
      (2018/C 364/16)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Tilly-Sabco (Guerlesquin, France) (represented by: R. Milchior and S. Charbonnel, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  declare that the applicant’s action for damages relating to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 689/2013 of 18 July 2013 fixing the export refunds on poultry meat at zero (OJ L 196/13 of 19 July 2013) to be admissible;

                  —

                  declare the Commission to be liable with respect to the applicant for the payment of the principal sum of EUR 3 238 000, including:

                  —

                  EUR 2 848 000 equivalent to uncollected refunds in relation to sales carried out between 19 July and 31 December 2013;

                  —

                  EUR 390 000 of refunds relating to losses stemming from the failure to achieve 3 550 tonnes of additional sales to PMOs over the course of the same period;

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay the principal sum of EUR 3 238 000;

                  —

                  reassessed by applying compensatory interest, starting from 20 September 2017 and continuing up to the date of delivery of the judgment, at the annual rate of inflation determined, for the period in question, by Eurostat (Statistical Office of the European Union) in the Member State where those companies are established;

                  —

                  increased by default interest, to be calculated as from the date of delivery of the present judgment and until full payment, at the rate set by the European Central Bank (ECB) for its principal refinancing operations, plus two percentage points;

                  —

                  authorise the applicant to amend its application and its claims in the event that the Commission adopts an implementing regulation replacing Regulation No 689/2013 before the end of the written phase of the proceedings in the present action;

                  —

                  order to the Commission to pay the costs of the present action.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law corresponding to the three basic conditions for an action for damages, which are cumulatively fulfilled in the present case, namely the existence of a harmful event corresponding to the unlawfulness of the conduct complained of, of damage and of a causal link between the harmful event and the damage.
      Firstly, the applicant considers that the adoption by the Commission of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 689/2013 of 18 July 2013 fixing the export refunds on poultry meat at zero (OJ 2013 L 196, p. 13), annulled by the Court of Justice in its judgment of 20 September 2017, Tilly-Sabco v Commission (C-183/16 P, EU:C:2017:704), constitutes a sufficient infringement of EU law to establish the existence of a sufficiently serious infringement.
      Secondly, it considers that the Commission, by unlawfully adopting a measure writing down the amount of the refunds on the sales of frozen chickens in certain countries outside the EU, committed a sufficiently serious infringement constituting a harmful event which resulted in actual and certain damage to it. That damage consists, according to the applicant, in the fact that it did not benefit from refunds until 31 December 2013.
      Thirdly, the applicant company claims that it is justified in requesting compensation for the loss suffered relating to the unlawful cancellation of the refunds between 19 July 2013 and 31 December 2013. The Commission’s wrongful conduct was thus the decisive cause of the damage which it allegedly suffered and therefore, there is a direct and immediate link between that wrongful conduct and that damage.


title: Case T-184/17: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2018 — Leifheit v EUIPO (Position of four green squares on a scale) (EU trade mark — Application for EU trade mark consisting of four green squares on a scale — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

text:
               29.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/27

      Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2018 — Leifheit v EUIPO (Position of four green squares on a scale)
      (Case T-184/17) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Application for EU trade mark consisting of four green squares on a scale - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
      (2018/C 392/33)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Leifheit AG (Nassau, Germany) (represented by: G. Hasselblatt, V. Töbelmann and P. Schneider, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented initially by: V. Mensing and A. Schifko, and subsequently by: V. Mensing and D. Hanf, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 January 2017 (Case R 1115/2016-1) concerning an application for registration of a sign consisting of four green squares on a scale as an EU trade mark.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Leifheit AG to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 161, 22.5.2017.


title: Case T-627/16: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2018 — Czech Republic v Commission (EAGF — Expenditure excluded from financing — Expenditure incurred by the Czech Republic — Decoupled direct aid — Remote-sensing checks — Wine-growing sector — Cross-compliance — Reoccurrence of non-compliance)

text:
               29.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/21

      Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2018 — Czech Republic v Commission
      (Case T-627/16) (1)

      ((EAGF - Expenditure excluded from financing - Expenditure incurred by the Czech Republic - Decoupled direct aid - Remote-sensing checks - Wine-growing sector - Cross-compliance - Reoccurrence of non-compliance))
      (2018/C 392/25)
      Language of the case: Czech

         Parties

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

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou, Z. Malůšková and K. Walkerová, acting as Agents)

         Intervener in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: F. Bergius, A. Falk, C. Meyer-Seitz and H. Shev, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/1059 of 20 June 2016 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2016 L 173, p. 59), in so far as it excludes the payments made by the Czech Republic under the EAGF in the amount of EUR 30 206 401,58.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/1059 of 20 June 2016 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in so far as it excludes the payments made by the Czech Republic under the EAGF in the amount of EUR 6 356 909,30 in respect of cross-compliance checks for the financial year 2011;

                  2.

                  Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

                  3.

                  Orders the European Commission, the Czech Republic and the Kingdom of Sweden to bear their own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 392, 24.10.2016.


title: Case C-488/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 25 July 2018 — Finanzamt Kaufbeuren mit Außenstelle Füssen v Golfclub Schloss Igling e.V.

text:
               29.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/6

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 25 July 2018 — Finanzamt Kaufbeuren mit Außenstelle Füssen v Golfclub Schloss Igling e.V.
      (Case C-488/18)
      (2018/C 392/09)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Bundesfinanzhof

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: Finanzamt Kaufbeuren mit Außenstelle Füssen

         Respondent: Golfclub Schloss Igling e.V.

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Does Article 132(1)(m) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, (1) under which Member States are to exempt ‘the supply of certain services closely linked to sport or physical education by non-profit-making organisations to persons taking part in sport or physical education’, have direct effect, with the result that, in the absence of transposition, that provision may be relied on directly by non-profit-making organisations?

                  2.

                  If the first question is answered in the affirmative: Is ‘non-profit-making organisation’ within the meaning of Article 132(1)(m) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax

                              —

                              a concept that must be interpreted under EU law autonomously, or

                              —

                              are the Member States authorised to make the existence of such an organisation subject to conditions such as Paragraph 52, in conjunction with Paragraph 55, of the Abgabenordnung (German General Tax Code) (or Paragraph 51 et seq. of the General Tax Code in their entirety)?

                  3.

                  If it is a concept that must be interpreted under EU law autonomously: Must a non-profit-making organisation within the meaning of Article 132(1)(m) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax have rules that apply in the event that the organisation is dissolved, under which it has to transfer its existing assets to another non-profit-making organisation in order to promote sport and physical education?

         (1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


title: Case T-523/18: Action brought on 3 September 2018 — BGC Partners v EUIPO — Bankgirocentralen BGC (BGCPRO)

text:
               29.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/36

      Action brought on 3 September 2018 — BGC Partners v EUIPO — Bankgirocentralen BGC (BGCPRO)
      (Case T-523/18)
      (2018/C 392/44)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

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

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

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

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

         Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark BGCPRO — Application for registration No 9 573 965

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 June 2018 in Case R 2544/2014-5.

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision in so far as the Board of Appeal determined that the Application should be rejected for specific services in class 36;

                  —

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

                  —

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

         Pleas in law

                  —

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

                  —

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


title: Case T-61/17: Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2018 — Selimovic v Parliament (Law governing the institutions — European Parliament — Psychological harassment — Decision of the President of the Parliament imposing on a Member of the European Parliament the penalty of a reprimand — Article 166 of the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament — Right to good administration — Right of access to the file — Obligation to state reasons — Legal certainty — Misuse of power — Non-contractual liability)

text:
               29.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/23

      Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2018 — Selimovic v Parliament
      (Case T-61/17) (1)

      ((Law governing the institutions - European Parliament - Psychological harassment - Decision of the President of the Parliament imposing on a Member of the European Parliament the penalty of a reprimand - Article 166 of the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament - Right to good administration - Right of access to the file - Obligation to state reasons - Legal certainty - Misuse of power - Non-contractual liability))
      (2018/C 392/27)
      Language of the case: Swedish

         Parties

         Applicant: Jasenko Selimovic (Hägersten, Sweden) (represented initially by: B. Leidhammar and subsequently by: S. Scheiman, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: O. Caisou-Rousseau, L. Tapper Brandberg and E. Taneva, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      First, application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decisions of the President of the Parliament of 22 November 2016 and the decision of the Bureau of the Parliament of 12 December 2016 imposing the penalty of a reprimand on the applicant and, secondly, application based on Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the request for an expedited procedure as manifestly inadmissible;

                  2.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  3.

                  Orders Mr Jasenko Selimovic to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 121, 18.4.2017.


title: Case T-535/18: Action brought on 7 September 2018 — Peek & Cloppenburg v EUIPO — Peek & Cloppenburg (Peek’s)

text:
               29.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/39

      Action brought on 7 September 2018 — Peek & Cloppenburg v EUIPO — Peek & Cloppenburg (Peek’s)
      (Case T-535/18)
      (2018/C 392/47)
      Language in which the application was lodged: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Düsseldorf (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: P. Lange, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Hamburg (Hamburg, Germany)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

         Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Peek’s’ — Application for registration No 3 263 589

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 May 2018 in Case R 60/2007-1

         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 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in combination with paragraph 15(2) of the Markengesetz (German Law on Trade Marks; ‘MarkenG’);

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in combination with paragraph 15(2) of the MarkenG on the basis of a likelihood of confusion;

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in combination with paragraph 15(3) of the MarkenG on the basis of an unfair advantage taken of distinctive character or repute or of detriment to distinctive character or repute;

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 63 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of the Council in combination with Rule 20(7)(c) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95.


title: Case C-498/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 27 July 2018 — ZW v Deutsche Lufthansa AG

text:
               5.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/23

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 27 July 2018 — ZW v Deutsche Lufthansa AG
      (Case C-498/18)
      (2018/C 399/31)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Referring court

      Tribunal Supremo

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: ZW

         Respondent: Deutsche Lufthansa AG

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Can the period of two years in which to bring an action, laid down in Article 35(1) of the Montreal Convention, be interrupted or suspended?

                  2.

                  Does the provision contained in Article 35(2) of the Montreal Convention, […] [according to which] … ‘[t]he method for calculating that period shall be determined by the law of the court seised of the case’, allow it to be considered that a national legal provision on when the limitation period begins to run can prevail over the general provision contained in Article 35(1) whereby the limitation period begins with the arrival at the destination?


title: Joined Cases C-208/17 P to C-210/17 P: Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 September 2018 — NF (C-208/17 P), NG (C-209/17 P), NM (C-210/17 P) v European Council (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — EU-Turkey statement of the European Council of 18 March 2016 — Application for annulment)

text:
               5.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/13

      Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 September 2018 — NF (C-208/17 P), NG (C-209/17 P), NM (C-210/17 P) v European Council
      (Joined Cases C-208/17 P to C-210/17 P) (1)

      ((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - EU-Turkey statement of the European Council of 18 March 2016 - Application for annulment))
      (2018/C 399/16)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellants: NF (C-208/17 P), NG (C-209/17 P), NM (C-210/17 P) (represented by: P. O’Shea, Barrister-at-Law, I. Whelan, Barrister-at-Law, and B. Burns, Solicitor)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Council (represented by: S. Boelaert, M. Chavrier and J.-P. Hix, acting as Agents)

         Intervener in support of the defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: M. Michelogiannaki and G. Karipsiadis, acting as Agents)

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The appeals are dismissed as being manifestly inadmissible.

                  2.

                  NF, NG and NM shall pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 231, 17.7.2017.


title: Case T-538/18: Action brought on 14 September 2018 — Dickmanns v EUIPO

text:
               5.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/48

      Action brought on 14 September 2018 — Dickmanns v EUIPO
      (Case T-538/18)
      (2018/C 399/63)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Sigrid Dickmanns (Gran Alacant, Spain) (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul EUIPO’s determination communicated by its letter of 14 December 2017 that the applicant’s contract for temporary employment would end on 30 June 2018 and, to the extent necessary for the annulment of the determination referred to above, also annul the determinations communicated in EUIPO’s letters of 23 November 2013 and 4 June 2014;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay to the applicant compensation of a reasonable amount, at the Court’s discretion, in respect of the non-pecuniary and immaterial loss caused to the applicant by EUIPO’s decision referred to in the first point; and

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following pleas in law:

                  1.

                  Manifest error of assessment, failure to exercise the Office’s discretion, infringement of the principles of non-discrimination and equal treatment, infringement of the principle of non-arbitrariness
                  The applicant complains that EUIPO unlawfully failed to exercise its discretion to renew for a second time the applicant’s employment contract in accordance with Article 2(f) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union (‘CEOS’), or, in the alternative, failed to act a reasonable period of time prior to the end of the employment contract.

                  2.

                  Infringement of the Guidelines for the renewal of temporary agent contracts (‘the Guidelines’), the principle of sound administration, the principles of non-discrimination and equal treatment and the principle that the ending of the contract of a temporary agent under Article 2(a) or 2(f) CEOS requires a justifying ground (a ‘iusta causa’) and infringement of Article 30 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), Council Directive 1999/70/EC, (1) the Framework Agreement (in particular Articles 1(b) and 5.1 thereof) and Article 4 of ILO Convention 158
                  The applicant takes the view that it should no longer have been permissible to exercise the ‘Termination Clause’ in her contract following the adoption of the Guidelines, as, once they have been introduced, they represent the applicable procedural methods of EUIPO with regard to the renewal of temporary agent contracts, and therefore prohibit the exercise of the ‘Termination Clause’.
                  Further, the applicant claims that a justifying ground for the termination of the contract must correspond to the budgetary nature of the relevant position.

                  3.

                  Infringement of the Guidelines, which also constitutes a significant procedural defect, infringement of the principles of non-discrimination and equal treatment, of the principle of sound administration and sound financial management, of the right of every person to be heard, before any individual measure which would affect him or her adversely is taken (Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter), of the Office’s duty to have regard for the welfare of its staff and of the duty to take into account the legitimate interests of the applicant, manifest error of assessment in its balancing of the applicant’s interests with those of the service, infringement of the principle of non-arbitrariness

                  4.

                  Infringement of the second and third sentences of the first paragraph of Article 8 CEOS and of the prohibition on repeated fixed-term employment
                  In this regard the applicant claims that, in a flagrant effort to avoid the legal consequences of the third sentence of the first paragraph of Article 8 CEOS, EUIPO repeatedly entered into contracts for the applicant’s fixed-term employment pursuant to Article 2(b) and 2(a) CEOS, despite the fact that the applicant’s activities remained unchanged during that time. Consequently, the applicant’s first contract remains valid for an unlimited period of time without a termination clause.

                  5.

                  Unlawful retention of a termination clause in the context of the Reinstatement Protocol and infringement of legitimate expectations, the applicant’s legitimate interests and the duty to have regard for the welfare of its staff when exercising the clause
                  By its fifth plea in law, the applicant complains that EUIPO should no longer have been able to exercise the termination clause after the long period of time that had elapsed since the signing of the contract in 2005.

                  6.

                  Infringement of the applicant’s legitimate expectations, of the duty of the Office to have regard for the applicant’s welfare and failure to take into account her legitimate interests, manifest error of assessment in the assessment of the interests of the service
                  In the sixth plea in law, the applicant complains that EUIPO’s decision not to renew her employment contract infringes her legitimate expectations, the Office’s duty to have regard for the applicant’s welfare and the applicant’s legitimate interests. At the same time, taking account of the applicant’s very good performance, it also represents a manifest error of assessment with regard to the interests of the service.

                  7.

                  Infringement of the terms of the termination clause in Article 5 of the applicant’s employment contract
                  In the seventh plea in law, the applicant complains that, when EUIPO exercised the termination clause, it wrongly applied Article 47(b)(ii) CEOS, instead of Article 47(c)(i), as is laid down in the termination clause, and that the notice period should have been 10 months, instead of the 6 month period established by EUIPO.

         (1)  Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ L 175, 10.7.1999, p. 43).


title: Case C-472/17: Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 September 2018 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di pace di L’Aquila — Italy) — Gabriele Di Girolamo v Ministero della Giustizia (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Social policy — Fixed-term employment — Magistrates — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               5.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/13

      Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 September 2018 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di pace di L’Aquila — Italy) — Gabriele Di Girolamo v Ministero della Giustizia
      (Case C-472/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Social policy - Fixed-term employment - Magistrates - Manifest inadmissibility))
      (2018/C 399/17)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Giudice di pace di L’Aquila

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Gabriele Di Girolamo

         Defendant: Ministero della Giustizia

         Intervener: Unione Nazionale Giudici di Pace (Unagipa)

         Operative part of the order

      The request for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di pace di L’Aquila (Magistrates Court, L’Aquila, Italy), by decision of 31 July 2017, is manifestly inadmissible.

         (1)  OJ C 347, 16.10.2017.


title: Case C-587/18 P: Appeal brought on 19 September 2018 by CSTP Azienda della Mobilità SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 11 July 2018 in Case T-186/15, CSTP Azienda della Mobilità v Commission

text:
               5.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/26

      Appeal brought on 19 September 2018 by CSTP Azienda della Mobilità SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 11 July 2018 in Case T-186/15, CSTP Azienda della Mobilità v Commission
      (Case C-587/18 P)
      (2018/C 399/35)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Appellant: CSTP Azienda della Mobilità SpA (represented by: G. Capo and L. Visone, avvocati)

         Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission and Asstra Associazione Trasporti

         Form of order sought

      The appellant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  set aside the judgment under appeal;

                  —

                  declare, pursuant to Articles 263 and 264 TFEU, that the decision of the European Commission of 19 January 2015 in State aid proceedings SA.35842 (2014/C) (ex 2012/NN) (in respect of EUR 4 951 838,25) is entirely null and void in so far as it finds that the sums awarded by way of compensation in respect of public service obligations within the meaning of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 (award of compensation under Article 11 in respect of tariff obligations in the Local Public Transport sector (1)) are to be held to be a non-notified measure constituting State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty which is incompatible with the internal market;

                  —

                  declare, pursuant to Articles 263 and 264 TFEU, that the decision of the European Commission of 19 January 2015 in State aid proceedings SA.35842 (2014/C) (ex 2012/NN) (in respect of EUR 4 951 838,25) is entirely void in so far as it imposes operational measures for the recovery of the aid by the Italian State;

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by CSTP Azienda della Mobilità SpA, under extraordinary administration.

         Grounds of appeal and main arguments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


title: Case T-475/18 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 27 August 2018 — Boyer v Wallis and Futuna (Interim measures — Public contracts — Application for interim measures — Inadmissibility)

text:
               5.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/37

      Order of the President of the General Court of 27 August 2018 — Boyer v Wallis and Futuna
      (Case T-475/18 R)
      ((Interim measures - Public contracts - Application for interim measures - Inadmissibility))
      (2018/C 399/50)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Boyer (Papeete, France) (represented by T. Dal Farra, lawyer)

         Defendant: Territory of the Wallis and Futuna Islands (France)

         Re:

      Application based on Articles 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU seeking, first, suspension of the operation of the decision of the Territory of the Wallis and Futuna Islands by which it rejected the applicant’s tender and awarded the works contract for construction of a commercial marine dock in Leava (France) to another tenderer, and, second, to suspend the signature of the relevant contract.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The application for interim measures is dismissed.

                  2.

                  The costs are reserved.


title: Judgment of the Court of 14 June 2018 in Case E-15/17 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland (Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Regulation (EU) No 694/2014)

text:
               15.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 414/10

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      of 14 June 2018
      in Case E-15/17
      EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland

         (Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Regulation (EU) No 694/2014)

      (2018/C 414/12)
      In Case E-15/17, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland – APPLICATION for a declaration that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area by failing to make the Act referred to at point 31bbd of Annex IX to that Agreement (Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 694/2014 of 17 December 2013 supplementing Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to regulatory technical standards determining types of alternative investment fund managers), as adapted by Protocol 1 to the Agreement, part of its internal legal order, the Court, composed of Páll Hreinsson, President, Per Christiansen and Bernd Hammermann (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 14 June 2018, the operative part of which is as follows:
      The Court hereby:

                  1.

                  Declares that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area by failing to make the Act referred to at point 31bbd of Annex IX to that Agreement (Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 694/2014 of 17 December 2013 supplementing Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to regulatory technical standards determining types of alternative investment fund managers), as adapted to the Agreement under its Protocol 1, part of its internal legal order.

                  2.

                  Orders Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.


title: Case T-576/18: Action brought on 25 September 2018 — Crédit agricole v ECB

text:
               3.12.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 436/55

      Action brought on 25 September 2018 — Crédit agricole v ECB
      (Case T-576/18)
      (2018/C 436/78)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Crédit agricole SA (Montrouge, France) (represented by: A. Champsaur and A. Delors, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Central Bank

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul, on the basis of Articles 256 and 263 TFEU, Decision ECB-SSM-2018-FRCAG-76 adopted by the ECB on 16 July 2018;

                  —

                  order the ECB to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging that the decision of the European Central Bank (ECB) of 16 July 2018, imposing on the applicant an administrative penalty for continued breach of the common equity requirements provided for in Article 26(3) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (OJ 2013 L 176, p. 1) (‘the contested decision’), is ultra vires. In that regard, the applicant argues as follows:

                              —

                              principally, it claims that the ECB erred in law in its interpretation of Article 26(3) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013, which does not require establishments to obtain prior authorisation from the ECB in order to classify ordinary shares as Tier 1 capital;

                              —

                              in the alternative, should the Court consider that classification of ordinary shares as Tier 1 capital without prior authorisation from the ECB constitutes a breach of Article 26(3) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013, the applicant claims not to have committed any intentional or negligent breach in applying that provision and that the contested decision infringes the principle of legal certainty;

                              —

                              in the further alternative, should the Court consider that a breach can be established and the applicant penalised, the applicant claims that, in the light of the lack of seriousness of the alleged breach and the cooperation of the applicant, the contested decision infringes the principle of proportionality.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging infringement by the ECB of the applicant’s fundamental procedural rights in so far as it based the contested decision on complaints against which the applicant was unable to present its objections.


               10.1.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/9

      Action brought on 9 November 2018 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland
      (Case E-6/18)
      (2019/C 9/10)
      An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 9 November 2018 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Carsten Zatschler, Catherine Howdle, and Ingibjörg Ólöf Vilhjálmsdóttir, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35 Rue Belliard, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.
      The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:

                  1.

                  Declare that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at point 1a of Annex XX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2014/52/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 amending Directive 2011/92/EU on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed, or in any event, by failing to inform the EFTA Surveillance Authority thereof.

                  2.

                  Order Iceland to bear the costs of these proceedings.

         Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

                  —

                  The application addresses Iceland’s failure to comply, no later than 3 April 2018, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 31 January 2018 regarding that State’s failure to implement into its national legal order Directive 2014/52/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 amending Directive 2011/92/EU on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as referred to at point 1a of Annex XX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and as adapted to that Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto (‘the Act’).

                  —

                  The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed.


title: Case T-494/17: Order of the General Court of 19 November 2018 — Iccrea Banca v Commission and SRB (Action for annulment and damages — Economic and Monetary Union — Banking Union — Single Resolution Mechanism of credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) — Single Resolution Fund (SRF) — Determination of the ex ante contribution for 2016 — Incorrect designation of the defendant — Period allowed for commencing proceedings — Delay — Hypothetical measures — Claim for damages — Closely connected with the claim for annulment — Plea of illegality — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/62

      Order of the General Court of 19 November 2018 — Iccrea Banca v Commission and SRB
      (Case T-494/17) (1)

      ((Action for annulment and damages - Economic and Monetary Union - Banking Union - Single Resolution Mechanism of credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) - Single Resolution Fund (SRF) - Determination of the ex ante contribution for 2016 - Incorrect designation of the defendant - Period allowed for commencing proceedings - Delay - Hypothetical measures - Claim for damages - Closely connected with the claim for annulment - Plea of illegality - Manifest inadmissibility))
      (2019/C 44/80)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: Iccrea Banca SpA Istituto Centrale del Credito Cooperativo (Rome, Italy) (represented by: P. Messina, F. Isgrò and A. Dentoni Litta, lawyers)

         Defendants: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, A. Steiblytė and M. K.-Ph. Wojcik, acting as Agents) and Single Resolution Board (SRB) (represented by: G. Rumi, S. Raes, M. Merola and T. Van Dyck, lawyers)

         Re:

      Principally, first, application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the Decision of the Executive Session of the Single Resolution Board of 15 April 2016 on the 2016 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2016/06) and of all further decisions of the Single Resolution Board on the basis of which the Banca d’Italia adopted national decisions No 1249264/15 of 24 November 2015, No 1262091/15 of 26 November 2015, No 1547337/16 of 29 December 2016, No 0333162/17 of 14 March 2017, and No 0334520/17 of 14 March 2017, in so far as they concern the applicant, and, secondly, application for damages based on Article 268 TFEU, or, in the alternative, application based on Article 277 TFEU.

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  The action is dismissed;

                  2.

                  Iccrea Banca SpA Istituto Centrale del Credito Cooperativo shall bear its own costs and shall pay those incurred by the Single Resolution Board and the European Commission.

         (1)  OJ C 318, 25.9.2017.


title: Case C-303/18 P: Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 28 November 2018 — Jean-Marie Le Pen v European Parliament (Appeal — Admissibility — European Parliament — Rules governing the expenses and allowances of Members of the European Parliament — Parliamentary assistance allowance — Recovery of sums unduly paid)

text:
               11.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 54/3

      Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 28 November 2018 — Jean-Marie Le Pen v European Parliament
      (Case C-303/18 P) (1)

      ((Appeal - Admissibility - European Parliament - Rules governing the expenses and allowances of Members of the European Parliament - Parliamentary assistance allowance - Recovery of sums unduly paid))
      (2019/C 54/04)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Appellant: Jean-Marie Le Pen (represented by: F. Wagner, avocat)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: S. Seyr and C. Burgos, acting as Agents)

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

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

                  2.

                  Mr Jean-Marie Le Pen shall pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 240, 9.7.2018.


title: Case C-698/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Specializat Mureș (Romania) lodged on 7 November 2018 — SC Raiffeisen Bank SA v JB

text:
               11.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 54/4

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Specializat Mureș (Romania) lodged on 7 November 2018 — SC Raiffeisen Bank SA v JB
      (Case C-698/18)
      (2019/C 54/06)
      Language of the case: Romanian

         Referring court

      Tribunalul Specializat Mureș

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: SC Raiffeisen Bank SA

         Defendant: JB

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Do the provisions of Council Directive 93/13/EEC on unfair terms in consumer contracts, (1) in particular the 12th, 21st and 23rd recitals and Articles 2(b), 6(1), 7(2) and 8 thereof, permit, in accordance with the principle of procedural autonomy and the principle of equivalence and effectiveness, a set of means of legal recourse that consists in an ordinary legal action, not subject to any limitation period, to establish the unfairness of certain terms in a consumer contract and an ordinary legal action of a personal and pecuniary nature that is subject to a limitation period, which is used in pursuit of the directive’s aim of eliminating the effects of all obligations arising and performed under clauses which are found to be unfair to consumers?

                  2.

                  In the event that the first question is answered in the affirmative, do those same provisions preclude an interpretation, derived from application of the principle of the certainty of civil-law legal relationships, according to which the objective point in time by which the consumer must have known or should have known of the existence of the unfair terms is the time at which the loan agreement with that consumer came to an end?

         (1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).


title: Case T-531/15: Judgment of the General Court of 6 December 2018 — Coveris Rigid France v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Retail food packaging market — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Principle of personal liability — No economic continuity — Equal treatment)

text:
               18.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/32

      Judgment of the General Court of 6 December 2018 — Coveris Rigid France v Commission
      (Case T-531/15) (1)

      ((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Retail food packaging market - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Principle of personal liability - No economic continuity - Equal treatment))
      (2019/C 65/39)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Coveris Rigid France, formerly Coveris Rigid (Auneau) France (Auneau, France) (represented by: H. Meyer-Lindemann, C. Graf York von Wartenburg and L. Stammwitz, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Biolan, F. Jimeno Fernández and L. Wildpanner, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission decision C(2015) 4336 final of 24 June 2015 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39563 — Retail food packaging) in so far as it applies to the applicant.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Coveris Rigid France to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 406, 7.12.2015.


title: Case T-539/16: Order of the General Court of 14 December 2018 — GM and Others v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Reform of the Staff Regulations — Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1023/2013 — Types of posts — Transitional measures relating to classification in the types of posts — Article 31 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations — Assistants in transition — Promotion pursuant to Article 45 of the Staff Regulations authorised only within the career streams corresponding to the type of post held — Exclusion of AST 9 officials from the promotion procedure — No act having an adverse effect — Confirmatory measure — Lis pendens — Manifest inadmissibility — Article 129 of the Rules of Procedure — Objection of inadmissibility — Article 130 of the Rules of Procedure)

text:
               18.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/33

      Order of the General Court of 14 December 2018 — GM and Others v Commission
      (Case T-539/16) (1)

      ((Civil service - Officials - Reform of the Staff Regulations - Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1023/2013 - Types of posts - Transitional measures relating to classification in the types of posts - Article 31 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations - Assistants in transition - Promotion pursuant to Article 45 of the Staff Regulations authorised only within the career streams corresponding to the type of post held - Exclusion of AST 9 officials from the promotion procedure - No act having an adverse effect - Confirmatory measure - Lis pendens - Manifest inadmissibility - Article 129 of the Rules of Procedure - Objection of inadmissibility - Article 130 of the Rules of Procedure))
      (2019/C 65/41)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicants: GM, GN, GO and GP (represented by: T. Bontinck and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: J. Currall and G. Gattinara, subsequently by C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Gattinara, and finally by G. Berscheid and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action under Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the decisions of the Commission by which the appointing authority of that institution classified the applicants as holding the post of ‘Assistant in transition’, resulting in the loss, with effect from 1 January 2014, of their eligibility for promotion to the next higher grade.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The action is dismissed as being manifestly inadmissible.

                  2.

                  The European Commission shall bear its own costs and pay half of the costs incurred by GM, GN, GO and GP.

                  3.

                  GM, GN, GO and GP shall bear half of their own costs.

                  4.

                  The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union shall bear their own costs relating to their respective applications for leave to intervene.

         (1)  OJ C 96, 23.3.2015 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under Case No F-16/15 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).


title: Case T-149/16: Order of the General Court of 30 January 2019 — Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor v Commission (Action for annulment — Financial assistance in the field of Connecting Europe Facility — Transport sector for the period 2014-2020 — Lis pendens — Inadmissibility)

text:
               18.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/42

      Order of the General Court of 30 January 2019 — Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor v Commission
      (Case T-149/16) (1)

      ((Action for annulment - Financial assistance in the field of Connecting Europe Facility - Transport sector for the period 2014-2020 - Lis pendens - Inadmissibility))
      (2019/C 103/57)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor BV (Amsterdam, the Netherlands) (represented by: initially by P. Glazener, then by Y. de Vries and D. Coumans and finally by Y. de Vries and J. de Kok, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Hottiaux and J. Samnadda, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision C(2015) 5274 final of 31 July 2015 establishing the list of proposals selected for receiving EU financial assistance in the field of Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) — Transport sector following the calls for proposals launched on 11 September 2014 based on the Multi-Annual Work Programme.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The action is dismissed as being inadmissible.

                  2.

                  Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor BV and the European Commission shall bear their own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 211, 13.6.2016.


title: Case T-735/18: Action brought on 14 December 2018 — Aquind/ACER

text:
               18.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/44

      Action brought on 14 December 2018 — Aquind/ACER
      (Case T-735/18)
      (2019/C 103/60)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Aquind Ltd (Wallsend, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Goldberg, E. White and C. Davis, Solicitors)

         Defendant: Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the defendant’s board of appeal Decision A-001-2018 of 17 October 2018 and the defendant’s decision 05/2018 of 19 June 2018 which it upholds;

                  —

                  rule on the main legal issues pleaded in the application, relating to: (i) the fact that the defendant and the defendant’s board of appeal erroneously considered that the applicant was required to first apply for and obtain a decision on a cross-border cost allocation before a decision can be taken under Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) (the fourth plea); and (ii) the failure of the defendant and the defendant’s board of appeal to take into account the legal impossibility for the applicant to operate the proposed interconnector in France without an exemption (the sixth plea);

                  —

                  rule on each of the pleas set out in the application individually to avoid further dispute on these contested grounds when the exemption request is reconsidered by the defendant; and

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging that an error of interpretation of Article 17(1) of Regulation No 714/2009 was committed by the allowing policy discretion of the defendant when assessing a request for exemption.
                  In the light of the objective criteria in Article 17(1) Regulation No 714/2009, the discretion of the defendant should be limited to examining whether those conditions are met or not.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging that an error of interpretation of Regulation No 714/2009 was committed when considering that a request for exemption should be granted only as a measure of last resort.
                  It appears that there is no basis for considering that the grant of an exemption should be a measure of last resort.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging that an error in the assessment of the burden and standard of proof required for an exemption to be granted pursuant to Article 17(1) of Regulation No 714/2009 was committed.
                  The defendant seems to impose a probatio diabolica to the applicant.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging that an error in the interpretation of the relationship between Article 17(1) of Regulation No 714/2009 and Article 12 of Regulation (EU) No 347/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2) and consequential reliance on the possibility of the applicant’s interconnector being eligible for a cross-border cost allocation procedure and failure to take account of issues associated with such procedure was committed.

                              —

                              It may not be correct that an exemption can only be granted after it has been demonstrated that a regulatory regime pursuant to Article 12 of Regulation No 347/2013 is not available. That regime should be voluntary and not applicable where an exemption is granted.

                              —

                              The approach adopted by the defendant could have failed to take into account risks associated with pursuing a regulated regime.

                  5.

                  Fifth plea in law, alleging that the fundamental principle of legal certainty of the EU law and the protection of legitimate expectations were violated by refusing to take into account established precedents in determining the correct interpretation of Regulation No 714/2009 and by adopting a radically different approach.

                              —

                              The applicant should be able to rely on the regulatory practice and principles to the assessment of exemption requests that has been established in European Commission’s decisions.

                  6.

                  Sixth plea in law, alleging that an error in the application of Article 17(1)(b) of Regulation No 714/2009 was committed by failing to take into account restrictions under French law applicable to non-RTE promoters of electricity interconnectors in France.

                              —

                              As the French legal restrictions have not been shown to be inconsistent with the EU law, therefore they should have been considered by the defendant in considering whether the investment would take place without an exemption.

                              —

                              There is no limitation to the types of risk that may be taken into account in the assessment of the condition of Article 17(1)(b) of Regulation No 714/2009.

                  7.

                  Seventh plea in law, alleging that an error in the application of Article 17(1)(b) of Regulation No 714/2009 was committed by failing to take into account the need for long term revenue certainty to secure financing for the applicant’s interconnector.
                  Project risks may deter the commitment of the funding needed. The impact of risks on the applicant’s ability to secure financing should therefore have been considered.

                  8.

                  Eighth plea in law, alleging that an error in the application of Article 17(1)(b) of Regulation No 714/2009 was committed by failing to consider the overall impact of the individual risks applicable to the applicant’s interconnector.
                  The overall risk/reward balance determines whether an investment will proceed. Therefore analysing each type of risk individually should not be sufficient.

                  9.

                  Ninth plea in law, alleging that the defendant’s board of appeal failed to apply sufficient scrutiny to the defendant’s decision.
                  Given its scope of powers and the serious questions to be addressed, the defendant’s board of appeal should have applied a higher level of scrutiny to the defendant’s decision.

         (1)  Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on conditions for access to the network for cross-border exchanges in electricity and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1228/2003 (OJ L 211, 14.8.2009, p. 15).

         (2)  Regulation (EU) No 347/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2013 on guidelines for trans-European energy infrastructure and repealing Decision No 1364/2006/EC and amending Regulations (EC) No 713/2009, (EC) No 714/2009 and (EC) No 715/2009 (OJ L 115, 25.4.2013, p. 39).


title: C-434/17: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 13 February 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Zalaegerszegi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Human Operator Zrt. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Deduction of VAT — Determination of the taxable person liable for VAT — Retroactive application of a derogating measure — Principle of legal certainty)

text:
               8.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/7

      Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 13 February 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Zalaegerszegi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Human Operator Zrt. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága
      (C-434/17) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Harmonisation of fiscal legislation - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Deduction of VAT - Determination of the taxable person liable for VAT - Retroactive application of a derogating measure - Principle of legal certainty)
      (2019/C 131/08)
      Language of the case: Hungarian

         Referring court

      Zalaegerszegi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Human Operator Zrt.

         Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

         Operative part of the judgment

      European Union law precludes national legislation which provides for the application of a measure derogating from Article 193 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2013/43/EU of 22 July 2013, before the EU act authorising that derogation has been notified to the Member State which requested it, despite the fact that that EU act does not mention the date of its entry into force or the date from which it applies, even if that Member State has expressed the wish for that derogation to apply with retroactive effect.

         (1)  OJ C 318, 25.9.2017.


title: Case C-154/18: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 February 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Labour Court — Ireland) — Tomás Horgan, Claire Keegan v Minister for Education & Skills, Minister for Finance, Minister for Public Expenditure & Reform, Ireland, Attorney General (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Equal treatment in employment and occupation — Directive 2000/78/EC — Article 2(2)(b) — Indirect discrimination on grounds of age — Newly recruited teachers — Date of recruitment — Salary scale and classification on that scale upon recruitment less advantageous than that applicable to teachers already employed as such)

text:
               8.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/14

      Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 February 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Labour Court — Ireland) — Tomás Horgan, Claire Keegan v Minister for Education & Skills, Minister for Finance, Minister for Public Expenditure & Reform, Ireland, Attorney General
      (Case C-154/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Directive 2000/78/EC - Article 2(2)(b) - Indirect discrimination on grounds of age - Newly recruited teachers - Date of recruitment - Salary scale and classification on that scale upon recruitment less advantageous than that applicable to teachers already employed as such)
      (2019/C 131/16)
      Language of the case: English

         Referring court

      Labour Court, Ireland

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: Tomás Horgan, Claire Keegan

         Defendants: Minister for Education & Skills, Minister for Finance, Minister for Public Expenditure & Reform, Ireland, Attorney General

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 2(2)(b) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted to the effect that a measure such as that at issue in the main proceedings which, as of a specific date, provides for the application on the recruitment of new teachers of a salary scale and classification on that scale which are less advantageous than that applied, under the rules previous to that measure, to teachers recruited before that date does not constitute indirect discrimination on the grounds of age within the meaning of that provision.

         (1)  OJ C 166, 14.5.2018.


title: Case C-492/18 PPU: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 February 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Execution of the European arrest warrant issued in respect of TC (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — European arrest warrant — Article 12 — Keeping a person in detention — Article 17 — Time limits for adoption of the decision to execute the European arrest warrant — National legislation providing for automatic suspension of detention 90 days after arrest — Interpretation in conformity with EU law — Suspension of time limits — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 6 — Right to liberty and security — Differing interpretations of national legislation — Clarity and predictability)

text:
               8.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/16

      Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 February 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Execution of the European arrest warrant issued in respect of TC
      (Case C-492/18 PPU) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - European arrest warrant - Article 12 - Keeping a person in detention - Article 17 - Time limits for adoption of the decision to execute the European arrest warrant - National legislation providing for automatic suspension of detention 90 days after arrest - Interpretation in conformity with EU law - Suspension of time limits - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 6 - Right to liberty and security - Differing interpretations of national legislation - Clarity and predictability)
      (2019/C 131/19)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Referring court

      Rechtbank Amsterdam

         Party in the main proceedings

      TC

         Operative part of the judgment

      Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States must be interpreted as precluding a national provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which lays down a general and unconditional obligation to release a requested person arrested pursuant to a European arrest warrant as soon as a period of 90 days from that person’s arrest has elapsed, where there is a very serious risk of that person absconding and that risk cannot be reduced to an acceptable level by the imposition of appropriate measures.
      Article 6 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as precluding national case-law which allows the requested person to be kept in detention beyond that 90-day period, on the basis of an interpretation of that national provision according to which that period is suspended when the executing judicial authority decides to refer a question to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling, or to await the reply to a request for a preliminary ruling made by another executing judicial authority, or to postpone the decision on surrender on the ground that there could be, in the issuing Member State, a real risk of inhuman or degrading detention conditions, in so far as that case-law does not ensure that that national provision is interpreted in conformity with Framework Decision 2002/584 and entails variations that could result in different periods of continued detention.

         (1)  OJ C 381, 22.10.2018.


title: Case C-571/18 P: Appeal brought on 11 September 2018 by Felismino Pereira against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 13 July 2018 in Case T-606/16 Pereira v Commission

text:
               8.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/17

      Appeal brought on 11 September 2018 by Felismino Pereira against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 13 July 2018 in Case T-606/16 Pereira v Commission
      (Case C-571/18 P)
      (2019/C 131/20)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Appellant: Felismino Pereira (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
      By order of 14 February 2019, the Court (Seventh Chamber) dismissed the appeal as manifestly inadmissible.


title: Case C-669/18 P: Appeal brought on 27 October 2018 by Adis Higiene, S.L. against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 10 August 2018 in Case T-309/18 Adis Higiene v EUIPO — Farecla Products (G3 Extra Plus)

text:
               8.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/17

      Appeal brought on 27 October 2018 by Adis Higiene, S.L. against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 10 August 2018 in Case T-309/18 Adis Higiene v EUIPO — Farecla Products (G3 Extra Plus)
      (Case C-669/18 P)
      (2019/C 131/22)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Appellant: Adis Higiene, S.L. (represented by: M.J. Sanmartín Sanmartín, lawyer)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office
      By order of 27 February 2019, the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered Adis Higiene, S.L. to pay its own costs.


title: Case C-830/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht Rheinland-Pfalz (Germany) lodged on 28 December 2018 — PF and Others v Landkreis Südliche Weinstraße

text:
               8.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/21

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht Rheinland-Pfalz (Germany) lodged on 28 December 2018 — PF and Others v Landkreis Südliche Weinstraße
      (Case C-830/18)
      (2019/C 131/26)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Oberverwaltungsgericht Rheinland-Pfalz

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: Landkreis Südliche Weinstraße

         Respondents: PF and Others

         Other party: Vertreter des öffentlichen Interesses

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Is Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a provision of national law limiting the obligation of national local authorities (districts) regarding school transport to the residents of the wider constituent state (Land) has an indirectly discriminatory effect, even if it is established, on the basis of the factual circumstances, that the residence requirement quite predominantly excludes residents of the rest of the territory of the Member State from the benefit?
                  If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative:

                  2.

                  Does the effective organisation of the school system constitute an imperative requirement of public interest which is capable of justifying indirect discrimination?

         (1)  OJ 2011 L 141, p. 1.