201806150601955282018/C 231/342302018TC23120180702EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180406272821Case T-230/18: Action brought on 6 April 2018 — Czarnecki v Parliament
 ---documentbreak--- C2312018EN2710120180406EN0034271282Action brought on 6 April 2018 — Czarnecki v Parliament
   (Case T-230/18)2018/C 231/34Language of the case: French
      Parties

      Applicant: Ryszard Czarnecki (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

            —

            declare the present action admissible;

            —

            annul the contested decision of the European Parliament of 7 February 2018;

            —

            order the defendant to pay all the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

            1.

            First plea in law, alleging, first, infringement of the principle of the presumption of innocence, the right of defence and the principle of equality of arms, and, secondly, infringement of the principle of sound administration, the principle of the proportionality and the right to freedom of expression.

            2.

            Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment, a fumus persecutionis and misuse of powers.

            3.

            Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legal certainty and the principle of protection of legitimate expectations.


201806150661955242018/C 231/352382018TC23120180702EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180412282921Case T-238/18: Action brought on 12 April 2018 — Netflix International and Netflix v Commission
 ---documentbreak--- C2312018EN2810120180412EN0035281292Action brought on 12 April 2018 — Netflix International and Netflix v Commission
   (Case T-238/18)2018/C 231/35Language of the case: English
      Parties

      Applicants: Netflix International BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands), Netflix, Inc. (Los Gatos, California, United States) (represented by: E. Batchelor, Solicitor, N. Niejahr, B. Hoorelbeke and A. Patsa, lawyers)

      Defendants: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

            —

            annul the Commission Decision of 8 November 2017 on State aid SA.48950 (2017/N) on the prolongation of the aid scheme for the digitisation of cinematographic heritage works notified by France;

            —

            annul the Commission Decision of 20 November 2017 on State aid SA.48907 (2017/N) on the prolongation of the automatic aid scheme for audiovisual work (fiction and creative documentaries) notified by France;

            —

            annul the Commission Decision of 20 November 2017 on State aid SA.48699 (2017/N) on the prolongation of the automatic aid scheme for the production and preparation of cinematographic work notified by France; and

            —

            order the Commission to bear its own costs and Netflix's costs in connection with these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on a single plea in law.
   The applicants submit that the Commission violated Article 108(3) TFEU by not opening the formal investigation procedure provided for in Article 108(2) TFEU when examining the State aid schemes notified by France which are the subject of the contested decisions. The Commission was required to open the formal investigation procedure for each of the three State aid schemes on account of the serious difficulties it encountered in assessing each of them for compatibility with the internal market. By failing to open the formal investigation procedure, the Commission infringed the procedural rights of the applicants under Article 108(2) TFEU.
   The applicants submit that the existence of serious difficulties is supported by:

            —

            the circumstances and the length of the preliminary examination procedures that led to the adoption of the contested decisions; and

            —

            the content of the contested decisions, in particular as this relates to the State aid schemes' financing mechanisms and the State aid schemes' compatibility with EU law other than the State aid provisions.


201806150571955212018/C 231/362392018TC23120180702EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180417292911Case T-239/18: Action brought on 17 April 2018 — SKS Import Export v Commission
 ---documentbreak--- C2312018EN2910120180417EN0036291291Action brought on 17 April 2018 — SKS Import Export v Commission
   (Case T-239/18)2018/C 231/36Language of the case: French
      Parties

      Applicant: Société Kammama Saber (S.K.S) Import Export (Sousse Jawhara, Tunisia) (represented by: H. Chelly, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

            —

            declare the application admissible and well-founded;

      and accordingly:

            —

            partially annul Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/212 of 13 December 2017 in so far as it adds Tunisia to the list of third countries which present strategic deficiencies in their regimes on anti-money-laundering and countering terrorist financing;

            —

            order the Commission to pay all the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

            1.

            First plea in law, alleging lack of competence on the part of the Commission and infringement of essential procedural requirements in so far as the Commission exceeded its powers under the terms of the Association Agreement between Tunisia and the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission should have submitted the question to the Association Council so the latter could resolve the dispute or, alternatively, allow the parties to take the necessary measures to protect their interests.

            2.

            Second plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment as regards, first, the evaluation of Tunisia by the European Union and, secondly, the evaluation of Tunisia by the Financial Action Task Force. In that regard, the applicant considers that the Commission failed to take appropriate measures to manage the increased risk to the economic development process in Tunisia resulting from the contested delegated regulation.

            3.

            Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the EU Treaties, in particular Article 216(2) TFEU, according to which international agreements are binding on the institutions.


201806290551986492018/C 249/331632017TC24920180716EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180531272711Case T-163/17: Judgment of the General Court of 31 May 2018 — Consorzio di garanzia dell’olio extra vergine di oliva di qualità v Commission (Non-contractual liability — Simultaneous promotion campaigns in third countries for olive oil, one financed by the EAGF and intended to promote olive oil of European origin, and the other financed by the ERDF and intended to promote olive oil of Spanish origin — Lack of coordination between the Commission’s staff responsible for managing the two programmes — Material damage — Market loss and loss of revenue — Non-material damage — Damage to commercial reputation)
 ---documentbreak--- C2492018EN2710120180531EN0033271271Judgment of the General Court of 31 May 2018 — Consorzio di garanzia dell’olio extra vergine di oliva di qualità v Commission
   (Case T-163/17) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Non-contractual liability — Simultaneous promotion campaigns in third countries for olive oil, one financed by the EAGF and intended to promote olive oil of European origin, and the other financed by the ERDF and intended to promote olive oil of Spanish origin — Lack of coordination between the Commission’s staff responsible for managing the two programmes — Material damage — Market loss and loss of revenue — Non-material damage — Damage to commercial reputation)’2018/C 249/33Language of the case: Italian
      Parties

      Applicant: Consorzio di garanzia dell’olio extra vergine di oliva di qualità (Rome, Italy) (represented by: initially by A. Fratini and G. Pandolfi, and subsequently by A. Fratini, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   APPLICATION under Article 268 TFEU for compensation for the damage which the applicant claims to have suffered as a result, in essence, of (i) a lack of coordination between the Commission’s staff responsible for managing promotion campaigns for European and Spanish olive oils in third countries (India, Russia and China), co-financed by European funds, and (ii) a failure to eliminate the distortions of competition and adverse effects resulting therefrom.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

            1.

            Dismisses the action;

            2.

            Orders Consorzio di garanzia dell’olio extra vergine di oliva di qualità to bear its own costs;

            3.

            Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 129, 24.4.2017.


201807130562004392018/C 268/493252018TC26820180730EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180528404121Case T-325/18: Action brought on 28 May 2018 — VI.TO. v EUIPO — Bottega (Shape of a pink bottle)
 ---documentbreak--- C2682018EN4010120180528EN0049401412Action brought on 28 May 2018 — VI.TO. v EUIPO — Bottega (Shape of a pink bottle)
   (Case T-325/18)2018/C 268/49Language in which the application was lodged: Italian
      Parties

      Applicant: Vinicola Tombacco (VI.TO.) Srl (Trebaseleghe, Italy) (represented by: L. Giove, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sandro Bottega (Colle Umberto, Italy)

      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 three-dimensional mark (Shape of a pink bottle) – European Union trade mark No 12 309 795

      Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 March 2018 in Case R 1037/2017-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

            —

            annul the contested decision;

            —

            order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

            —

            Incorrect assessment of the ground for refusal laid down in Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

            —

            Incorrect assessment of the ground for refusal laid down in Article 7(1)(e)(i), (ii) and (iii) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.


201807130542004272018/C 268/383622016TC26820180730EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180619323211Case T-362/16: Judgment of the General Court of 19 June 2018 — Tillotts Pharma v EUIPO — Ferring (XENASA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark XENASA — Earlier EU word mark PENTASA — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
 ---documentbreak--- C2682018EN3210120180619EN0038321321Judgment of the General Court of 19 June 2018 — Tillotts Pharma v EUIPO — Ferring (XENASA)
   (Case T-362/16) (
         1
      )
   ‛(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark XENASA — Earlier EU word mark PENTASA — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))’2018/C 268/38Language of the case: English
      Parties

      Applicant: Tillotts Pharma AG (Rheinfelden, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Douglas, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Ivanauskas and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Ferring BV (Hoofddorp, Netherlands) (represented initially by: I. Fowler, Solicitor, and D. Slopek, lawyer, and subsequently by I. Fowler)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 April 2016 (Case R 3264/2014-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Ferring and Tillotts Pharma.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

            1.

            Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 29 April 2016 (Case R 3264/2014-4);

            2.

            Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Tillotts Pharma AG;

            3.

            Orders Ferring BV to bear its own costs.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 314, 29.8.2016.


201807130182003572018/C 268/026122015CJC26820180730EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL201806052321Case C-612/15: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against Nikolay Kolev, Milko Hristov, Stefan Kostadinov (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 325 TFEU — Fraud or any other illegal activities affecting the financial interests of the European Union in customs matters — Effectiveness of prosecution — Closure of criminal proceedings — Reasonable time — Directive 2012/13/EU — Right of a person to be informed of the charges against him — Right of access to case materials — Directive 2013/48/EU — Right of access to a lawyer)
 ---documentbreak--- C2682018EN210120180605EN00022132Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against Nikolay Kolev, Milko Hristov, Stefan Kostadinov
   (Case C-612/15) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 325 TFEU — Fraud or any other illegal activities affecting the financial interests of the European Union in customs matters — Effectiveness of prosecution — Closure of criminal proceedings — Reasonable time — Directive 2012/13/EU — Right of a person to be informed of the charges against him — Right of access to case materials — Directive 2013/48/EU — Right of access to a lawyer)’2018/C 268/02Language of the case: Bulgarian
      Referring court

   Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

      Parties in the main proceedings

   Nikolay Kolev, Milko Hristov, Stefan Kostadinov

      Operative part of the judgment

            1.

            Article 325(1) TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national legislation that establishes a procedure for the termination of criminal proceedings, such as that provided for in Articles 368 and 369 of the Nakazatelno protsesualen kodeks (Code of Criminal Procedure), in so far as that legislation is applicable in proceedings initiated with respect to cases of serious fraud or other serious illegal activities affecting the financial interests of the European Union in customs matters. It is for the national courts to give full effect to Article 325(1) TFEU, by disapplying that legislation, where necessary, while also ensuring respect for the fundamental rights of the persons accused.

            2.

            Article 6(3) of Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings must be interpreted as not precluding the disclosure of detailed information on the charges to the defence after the lodging before the court of the indictment that initiates the trial stage of proceedings, but before the court begins to examine the merits of the charges and before the commencement of any hearing of argument by the court, and after the commencement of that hearing but before the stage of deliberation, where the information thus disclosed is the subject of subsequent amendments, provided that all necessary measures are taken by the court in order to ensure respect for the rights of the defence and the fairness of the proceedings.
            Article 7(3) of that directive must be interpreted as meaning that it is for the national court to be satisfied that the defence has been granted a genuine opportunity to have access to the case materials, such access being possible, in some cases, after the lodging before the court of the indictment that initiates the trial stage of the proceedings, but before that court begins to examine the merits of the charges and before the commencement of any hearing of argument by that court, and after the commencement of that hearing but before the stage of deliberation where new evidence is placed in the file in the course of proceedings, provided that all necessary measures are taken by the court in order to ensure respect for the rights of the defence and the fairness of the proceedings.

            3.

            Article 3(1) of Directive 2013/48/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 on the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings and in European arrest warrant proceedings, and on the right to have a third party informed upon deprivation of liberty and to communicate with third persons and with consular authorities while deprived of liberty, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation that requires a national court to dismiss the lawyer instructed by two accused persons, against their wishes, on the ground that there is a conflict of interest between those persons and, further, as not precluding the court from allowing those persons to instruct a new lawyer or, when necessary, itself naming two court-appointed lawyers, to replace the first lawyer.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 48, 8.2.2016.


201807130632003722018/C 268/503282018TC26820180730EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180528414221Case T-328/18: Action brought on 28 May 2018 — Gas Natural v Commission
 ---documentbreak--- C2682018EN4110120180528EN0050411422Action brought on 28 May 2018 — Gas Natural v Commission
   (Case T-328/18)2018/C 268/50Language of the case: Spanish
      Parties

      Applicant: Gas Natural SDG, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: F. González Díaz and V. Romero Algarra, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

            —

            Declare admissible and well founded the grounds of annulment set out in this action.

            —

            In accordance with Article 263 TFEU, annul the Commission Decision of 27 November 2017 in file SA.47912 (2017/NN) opening the formal investigation procedure provided for in Article 108(2) TFEU relating to the environmental investment incentive granted by the Kingdom of Spain to coal-fired power stations.

            —

            Order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The contested decision in this case opened the formal investigation procedure, provided for in Article 108(2) TFEU, relating to the environmental investment incentive granted by the Kingdom of Spain to coal-fired power stations.
   According to the applicant, it is apparent from the contested decision that the Commission harbours doubts as to whether the emission limit values imposed on plants that receive that environmental investment incentive are simply aimed at applying the protection levels required by EU law and, in particular, by Directive 2001/80/EC, which applies to coal-fired power stations. If that were the case, the environmental investment incentive would not provide any incentive at all. Furthermore, the environmental investment incentive would be contrary to the principle of EU law regarding State aid, according to which Member States cannot grant public aid to undertakings so that the latter can comply with binding EU laws.
   In support of its action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

            1.

            First plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons as regards the selective nature of the measure.

                     —

                     In that regard, it is submitted that the Commission provides no information that explains in a clear and unequivocal manner why the measure under investigation is selective in nature, for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU. In particular, the Commission fails to explain whether the coal-fired power stations are in a comparable factual and legal situation with the rest of the power stations and, if that is the case, whether the incentive in this case can favour ‘certain undertakings or productions’, for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU, in relation to other undertakings which are in a comparable factual and legal situation, in light of the objective pursued by the measure in question.

            2.

            Second plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU, in relation to the selectivity of the measure.

                     —

                     In that regard, it is submitted that the payment granted to the coal-fired power stations in order to continue supporting the investments cannot in any way be selective in nature given that the payment in question is limited to putting all post-1998 significant investments on an equal footing, irrespective of the technology and/or the fact that the power stations in question are CCGTs or coal-fired power stations, thus altering the amount of the payment according to its significance.

                     —

                     In any event, and even assuming that the Commission’s conclusions in the contested decision are correct, quod non, the applicant submits that, in light of their economic circumstances and their legal situation, the coal-fired power stations were not in a factual and legal situation that was comparable with that of power stations which use a different type of energy. Coal-fired power stations were the only ones established prior to 1998 which were obliged to make very significant investments in order to continue operating and which, without the payment in question, would have been forced to close, putting at risk the security of supply of the Spanish electricity system.


201807130642004522018/C 268/394082016TC26820180730EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180619323322Case T-408/16: Judgment of the General Court of 19 June 2018 — HX v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted against Syria — Freezing of funds — Principle of ne bis in idem — Rights of the defence — Right to a fair trial — Obligation to state reasons — Right to an effective remedy — Manifest error of assessment — Right to property — Proportionality — Right to a normal life — Damage to reputation)
 ---documentbreak--- C2682018EN3220120180619EN0039322332Judgment of the General Court of 19 June 2018 — HX v Council
   (Case T-408/16) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted against Syria — Freezing of funds — Principle of ne bis in idem — Rights of the defence — Right to a fair trial — Obligation to state reasons — Right to an effective remedy — Manifest error of assessment — Right to property — Proportionality — Right to a normal life — Damage to reputation)’2018/C 268/39Language of the case: Bulgarian
      Parties

      Applicant: HX (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: S. Koev and S. Klukowska, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: initially I. Gurov and G. Étienne, and subsequently I. Gurov and A. Vitro, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2016 L 141, p. 125), of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/840 of 27 May 2016 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2016 L 141, p. 30), of Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/917 of 29 May 2017 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2017 L 139, p. 62), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/907 of 29 May 2017 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2017 L 139, p. 15), in so far as those measures apply to the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

            1.

            Dismisses the action;

            2.

            Orders HX to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 419, 14.11.2016.


201807130232004192018/C 268/251972018CJC26820180730EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180319192021Case C-197/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 19 March 2018 — Wasserleitungsverband Nördliches Burgenland and Others
 ---documentbreak--- C2682018EN1910120180319EN0025191202Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 19 March 2018 — Wasserleitungsverband Nördliches Burgenland and Others
   (Case C-197/18)2018/C 268/25Language of the case: German
      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgericht Wien

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Wasserleitungsverband Nördliches Burgenland, Robert Prandl, Gemeinde Zillingdorf

      Defendant authority: Bundesministerin für Nachhaltigkeit und Tourismus, formerly Bundesminister für Land und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft

      Questions referred

   Is Article 288 TFEU, in conjunction with Article 5(4) or with Article 5(5) of, in conjunction with paragraph 2 of Annex I to, Council Directive 91/676/EEC (
         1
      ) of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources (‘the Nitrates Directive’), to be interpreted as meaning that:

            (a)

            a public water supplier, which provides water services and which in that regard, prior to delivering the drinking water to consumers (with compulsory connection), treats this water with high nitrate values taken from the wells available to it for that purpose in such a way as to attain a value of less than 50 mg/l nitrate concentration prior to delivery to consumers, and which is also required by law to supply water within a specified geographical area, is directly concerned within the meaning of the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (in this case possibly by failure to implement Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991), in so far as it is concerned by what are claimed to be inadequate action plans (as the value of 50 mg/l nitrate concentration in the water in this water supplier’s area is exceeded) and must for that reason take measures to treat the water and is therefore granted subjective rights under the Nitrates Directive

                     (a.1)

                     to amendment of an action programme already adopted nationally to implement the Nitrates Directive (pursuant to Article 5(4) of the Nitrates Directive) in such a way that stricter measures with the aim of attaining the objectives of Article 1 of the Nitrates Directive and specifically attaining a value of up to a maximum 50 mg/l nitrate concentration in the groundwaters at individual intake points are thus adopted?

                     (a.2)

                     to the adoption of additional measures or reinforced actions (pursuant to Article 5(5) of the Nitrates Directive) with the aim of achieving the objectives laid down in Article 1(1) of the Nitrates Directive and specifically attaining a value of up to a maximum 50 mg/l nitrate concentration in the groundwaters at individual intake points?

            (b)

            a consumer, who would be authorised by law to use the water from his own domestic well for his personal consumption and who does not use this water on account of high nitrate values (and who was unable to use it at the time of the application underlying the proceedings and who could, admittedly, use it at the time of the present application to the Court of Justice of the European Union, even though it is common ground that a further increase of the nitrate value to above 50 mg/l nitrate concentration in the water is to be expected), but who rather receives the water from a public water supplier, is to that extent directly concerned within the meaning of the case-law of the European Union (in this case possibly by failure to implement Council Directive 91/676/EEC 12 December 1991), in so far as he is concerned by what are claimed to be inadequate action plans and the value of 50 mg/l nitrate concentration in the water of his water intake (domestic well) is exceeded, with the result that he is unable to exercise his legal right to make limited use of the groundwaters on his property and is therefore granted subjective rights under the Nitrates Directive

                     (b.1)

                     to amendment of an action programme already adopted nationally to implement the Nitrates Directive (pursuant to Article 5(4) of the Nitrates Directive) in such a way that stricter measures with the aim of attaining the objectives of Article 1 of the Nitrates Directive and specifically attaining a value of up to a maximum 50 mg/l nitrate concentration in the groundwaters at individual intake points are thus adopted?

                     (b.2)

                     to the adoption of addition measures or reinforced actions (pursuant to Article 5(5) of the Nitrates Directive) with the aim of achieving the objectives laid down in Article 1(1) of the Nitrates Directive and specifically attaining a value of up to a maximum 50 mg/l nitrate concentration in the groundwaters at individual intake points?

            (c)

            a municipality, which, as a public body, uses or makes available a communal well, which it operates, only for non-drinking water on account of nitrate values of over 50 mg/l nitrate concentration — without this affecting the drinking water supply — is directly concerned within the meaning of the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (in this case possibly by failure to implement Council Directive 91/676/EEC 12 December 1991 as a result of inadequate action plans in this regard) in so far as the value of 50 mg/l nitrate concentration in the water at the source is exceeded and therefore a use as drinking water is not available, and is therefore granted subjective rights under the Nitrates Directive

                     (c.1)

                     to amendment of an action programme already adopted nationally to implement the Nitrates Directive (pursuant to Article 5(4) of the Nitrates Directive) in such a way that stricter measures with the aim of attaining the objectives of Article 1 of the Nitrates Directive and specifically attaining a value of up to a maximum 50 mg/l nitrate concentration in the groundwaters at individual intake points are thus adopted?

                     (c.2)

                     to the adoption of additional measures or reinforced actions (pursuant to Article 5(5) of the Nitrates Directive) with the aim of achieving the objectives laid down in Article 1(1) of the Nitrates Directive and specifically attaining a value of up to a maximum 50 mg/l nitrate concentration in the groundwaters at individual intake points?

               In all three cases the protection of consumer health is safeguarded in any event either — in cases (b) and (c) — by taking the water from water suppliers providing it (with compulsory connection and a right to connection) or — in case (a) — by the corresponding treatment measures.

      (
         1
      )	Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources (OJ 1991 L 375, p. 1).


201807130422003962018/C 268/194632017CJC26820180730EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180607151511Case C-463/17 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 June 2018 — Ori Martin SA v Court of Justice of the European Union (Appeal — Action for damages — Inadequate reasoning in a judgment of the Court of Justice in appeal proceedings — Distortion of the nature of a claim for damages)
 ---documentbreak--- C2682018EN1510120180607EN0019151151Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 June 2018 — Ori Martin SA v Court of Justice of the European Union
   (Case C-463/17 P) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Appeal — Action for damages — Inadequate reasoning in a judgment of the Court of Justice in appeal proceedings — Distortion of the nature of a claim for damages)’2018/C 268/19Language of the case: Italian
      Parties

      Appellant: Ori Martin SA (represented by: G. Belotti, avvocato)

      Other party to the proceedings: Court of Justice of the European Union (represented by: J. Inghelram and Á. M. Almendros Manzano, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

            1.

            Dismisses the appeal;

            2.

            Orders Ori Martin SA to bear its own costs and those incurred by the Court of Justice of the European Union.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 392, 20.11.2017.


201808030112050052018/C 294/263512018CJC29420180820EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180530192021Case C-351/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vredegerecht te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 30 May 2018 — Nationale Maatschappij der Belgische Spoorwegen (NMBS) v Jean-Louis Anita Dedroog
 ---documentbreak--- C2942018EN1910120180530EN0026191202Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vredegerecht te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 30 May 2018 — Nationale Maatschappij der Belgische Spoorwegen (NMBS) v Jean-Louis Anita Dedroog
   (Case C-351/18)2018/C 294/26Language of the case: Dutch
      Referring court

   Vredegerecht te Antwerpen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Nationale Maatschappij der Belgische Spoorwegen (NMBS)

      Defendant: Jean-Louis Anita Dedroog

      Questions referred

            1.

            Must Article 9(4) of [Regulation No 1371/2007] (
                  1
               ) of 23 October 2007 on rail passengers’ rights and obligations, read in conjunction with Article 2(a) and Article 3 of Directive 93/13, (
                  2
               ) be interpreted as meaning that a contractual legal relationship is always created between the transport company and the passenger, even when the latter makes use of the services provided by the transport company without purchasing a ticket?

            2.

            If the answer to the previous question is in the negative, does the protection offered by the doctrine of unfair terms also extend to a passenger who makes use of public transport without having acquired a ticket and who, by that action, under the general terms and conditions of the transport company, which are considered to be generally binding on the basis of their regulatory nature or, alternatively, by virtue of their publication in an official State publication, is obliged to pay a surcharge in addition to the fare?

            3.

            Does Article 6 of Directive 93/13 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, which provides that ‘Member States shall lay down that unfair terms used in a contract concluded with a consumer by a seller or supplier shall, as provided for under their national law, not be binding on the consumer and that the contract shall continue to bind the parties upon those terms if it is capable of continuing in existence without the unfair terms’, preclude a court in all cases from moderating the term deemed to be unfair or from applying ordinary law instead?

            1.

            If the answer to the previous question is in the negative, what then are the circumstances in which a national court may proceed to moderate the term found to be unfair or to replace it by the ordinary law?

            2.

            If the aforementioned questions cannot be answered in abstracto, the question then arises as to whether, if the national railway company, having apprehended a fare-dodger, imposes a civil penalty in the form of a surcharge, whether or not in addition to the fare, and the court were to find that the surcharge imposed is unfair within the meaning of Article 2(a), read in conjunction with Article 3, of Directive 93/13, Article 6 of Directive 93/13 precludes the court from declaring the term void and applying ordinary liability law to compensate the national railway company for the damage suffered.

      (
         1
      )	OJ 2007 L 315, p. 14.
   (
         2
      )	Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).


201808030192050472018/C 294/393812018CJC29420180820EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180611282922Case C-381/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 11 June 2018 — G.S., other party: Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid
 ---documentbreak--- C2942018EN2820120180611EN0039282292Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 11 June 2018 — G.S., other party: Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid
   (Case C-381/18)2018/C 294/39Language of the case: Dutch
      Referring court

   Raad van State

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: G.S.

      Other party: Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

      Questions referred

            1.

            Must Article 6(2) of Directive 2003/86/EC (
                  1
               ) … be interpreted as meaning that the withdrawal or the refusal to renew the residence permit of a family member on grounds of public policy require that reasons be stated as to why the personal conduct of the family member concerned poses a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat to one of the fundamental interests of society?

            2.

            If question 1 is to be answered in the negative, what are the requirements under Article 6(2) of Directive 2003/86/EC … that apply to the reasons for the withdrawal or the refusal to renew the residence permit of a family member on grounds of public policy?
            Must Article 6(2) of Directive 2003/86/EC … therefore be interpreted as precluding a national practice according to which the residence permit of a family member can be withdrawn or the renewal thereof can be refused on grounds of public policy if the penalty or measure to which the family member concerned has been sentenced is sufficiently high in relation to the duration of the lawful stay in the Netherlands (the ‘sliding scale’), so that, based on the criteria laid down in the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (the ECtHR) of 2 August 2001, Boultif v Switzerland, CE:ECHR:2001:0802JUD005427300, and 18 October 2006, Üner v The Netherlands, CE:ECHR:2006:1018JUD004641099, a balance is struck between the interest of the family member concerned to exercise the right to family reunification in the Netherlands, on the one hand, and the interests of the Netherlands State to protect public order, on the other hand?

      (
         1
      )	Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification (OJ 2003 L 251, p. 12).


201808030652050922018/C 294/57882017TC29420180820EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180705434421Case T-88/17: Judgment of the General Court of 5 July 2018 — Spain v Commission (EAFRD — Last execution year of 2007-2013 programming period — Clearance of accounts of Member States’ paying agencies — Decision declaring a certain amount non-reusable in the Rural development programme of the Autonomous Community of Estremadura — Calculation method — Article 69(6b) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 — Legitimate expectations)
 ---documentbreak--- C2942018EN4310120180705EN0057431442Judgment of the General Court of 5 July 2018 — Spain v Commission
   (Case T-88/17) (
         1
      )
   ‛(EAFRD — Last execution year of 2007-2013 programming period — Clearance of accounts of Member States’ paying agencies — Decision declaring a certain amount non-reusable in the Rural development programme of the Autonomous Community of Estremadura — Calculation method — Article 69(6b) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 — Legitimate expectations)’2018/C 294/57Language of the case: Spanish
      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M.A. Sampol Pucurull and M.J. García-Valdecasas Dorrego, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Aquilina and M. Morales Puerta, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment in part of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/2113 of 30 November 2016 on the clearance of accounts of the paying agencies of Member States concerning expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) in the last execution year of EAFRD 2007-2013 programming period (16 October 2014-31 December 2015) (OJ 2016 L 327, p. 79), by which the Commission classified the sum of EUR 5364682,52 as a ‘non-reusable amount’ in the clearance of the accounts of the Estremadura paying agency.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

            1.

            Dismisses the action;

            2.

            Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 95, 27.3.2017.


201808030442049922018/C 294/403822018CJC29420180820EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180611293021Case C-382/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 11 June 2018 — V.G., other party: Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid
 ---documentbreak--- C2942018EN2910120180611EN0040291302Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 11 June 2018 — V.G., other party: Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid
   (Case C-382/18)2018/C 294/40Language of the case: Dutch
      Referring court

   Raad van State

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: V.G.

      Other party: Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

      Questions referred

            1.

            Does the Court of Justice, having regard to Article 3(3) of Directive 2003/86/EC (
                  1
               ) … and the Nolan judgment (ECLI:EU:C:2012:638), have the jurisdiction to answer questions referred for a preliminary ruling by a Netherlands court on the interpretation of certain provisions of that Directive in a dispute concerning an application for entry and residence of a family member of a sponsor who has Netherlands nationality, if that Directive was declared to apply directly and unconditionally to such family members in Netherlands law?

            2.

            Must Article 6(1) of Directive 2003/86/EC … be interpreted as meaning that the rejection of an application for entry and residence of a family member on the grounds of public policy requires that reasons be stated as to why the personal conduct of the family member concerned poses a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat to one of the fundamental interests of society?

            3.

            If question 2 is to be answered in the negative, what are the requirements under Article 6(2) of Directive 2003/86/EC … that apply to the reasons for rejecting an application for entry and residence of a family member on the grounds of public policy?
            Must Article 6(2) of Directive 2003/86/EC … therefore be interpreted as precluding a national practice according to which an application for entry and residence of a family member can be rejected on grounds of public policy on the basis of convictions during an earlier stay in the Member State concerned, so that, based on the criteria laid down in the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (the ECtHR) of 2 August 2001, Boultif v Switzerland, CE:ECHR:2001:0802JUD005427300, and of 18 October 2006, Üner v The Netherlands, CE:ECHR:2006:1018JUD004641099, a balance is struck between the interest of the family member concerned and the sponsor concerned to exercise the right to family reunification in the Netherlands, on the one hand, and the interests of the Netherlands State to protect public order, on the other hand?

      (
         1
      )	Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification (OJ 2003 L 251, p. 12).


title: Case C-395/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 14 June 2018 — Tim SpA — Direzione e coordinamento Vivendi SA v Consip SpA, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze

text:
               27.8.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/16

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 14 June 2018 — Tim SpA — Direzione e coordinamento Vivendi SA v Consip SpA, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze
      (Case C-395/18)
      (2018/C 301/22)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Tim SpA — Direzione e coordinamento Vivendi SA

         Defendants: Consip SpA, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Do Articles 57 and 71(6) of Directive 2014/24/EU (1) preclude national legislation, such as Article 80(5) of Legislative Decree No 50 of 2016, which requires the exclusion of a tendering economic operator where, during the tendering procedure, a ground is established for excluding a subcontractor forming part of the group of three subcontractors specified in the tender, rather than requiring the tenderer to replace the designated subcontractor?

                  2.

                  In the alternative, if the Court of Justice considers that the option of excluding the tenderer is one of the options open to the Member State, does the principle of proportionality enshrined in Article 5 of the EU Treaty, referred to in recital 101 of Directive 2014/24/EU and established as a general principle of EU law by the Court of Justice, preclude national legislation, such as Article 80(5) of Legislative Decree No 50 of 2016, which provides that, where a ground for excluding a designated subcontractor is established during the tendering procedure, a tendering economic operator is to be excluded in all cases, including where there are other subcontractors that have not been excluded and satisfy the requirements for the provision of the services to be subcontracted, or where the tendering economic operator declares that it will not subcontract as it satisfies the requirements for the provision of the services on its own?

         (1)  Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65).


title: Case C-532/17: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 4 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Wolfgang Wirth and Others v Thomson Airways Ltd (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Article 2(b) — Scope — Definition of ‘operating air carrier’ — Lease of aircraft including crew ‘Wet lease’)

text:
               27.8.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/10

      Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 4 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Wolfgang Wirth and Others v Thomson Airways Ltd
      (Case C-532/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Article 2(b) - Scope - Definition of ‘operating air carrier’ - Lease of aircraft including crew ‘Wet lease’))
      (2018/C 301/12)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Landgericht Hamburg

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: Wolfgang Wirth, Theodor Mülder, Ruth Mülder, Gisela Wirth

         Defendant: Thomson Airways Ltd

         Operative part of the judgment

      The concept of an ‘operating air carrier’ within the meaning of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 and, in particular, of Article 2(b) thereof must be interpreted as not covering the case of an air carrier, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which leases to another air carrier an aircraft, including crew, under a wet lease, but does not bear the operational responsibility for the flights, even where the booking confirmation of a seat on a flight issued to passengers states that that flight is operated by the former air carrier.

         (1)  OJ C 402, 27.11.2017.


title: Case C-400/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie (Belgium) lodged on 18 June 2018 — Infohos v Belgische Staat

text:
               27.8.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/17

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie (Belgium) lodged on 18 June 2018 — Infohos v Belgische Staat
      (Case C-400/18)
      (2018/C 301/23)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Referring court

      Hof van Cassatie

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: Infohos

         Respondent: Belgische Staat

         Question referred

      Must Article 13.A(1)(f) of Directive 77/388/EEC (1) of 17 May 1977, now Article 132(1)(f) of Directive 2006/112/EC (2) of 28 November 2006, be interpreted as permitting Member States to attach an exclusivity condition to the exemption provided for therein, whereby an independent group which also supplies services to non-members is also liable in full to VAT for the services supplied to its members?

         (1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).

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


title: Case C-402/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 15 June 2018 — Tedeschi Srl, acting in its own behalf and as agent of a temporary association of undertakings, Consorzio Stabile Istant Service, acting in its own behalf and as principal of a temporary association of undertakings v C.M. Service Srl, Università degli Studi di Roma La Sapienza

text:
               27.8.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/17

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 15 June 2018 — Tedeschi Srl, acting in its own behalf and as agent of a temporary association of undertakings, Consorzio Stabile Istant Service, acting in its own behalf and as principal of a temporary association of undertakings v C.M. Service Srl, Università degli Studi di Roma La Sapienza
      (Case C-402/18)
      (2018/C 301/24)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Consiglio di Stato

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellants: Tedeschi Srl, acting in its own behalf and as agent of a temporary association of undertakings, Consorzio Stabile Istant Service, acting in its own behalf and as principal of a temporary association of undertakings

         Respondent: Università degli Studi di Roma La Sapienza

         Respondent and cross-appellant: C.M. Service Srl

         Question referred

      Do the principles of freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services referred to in Articles 49 and 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), Article 25 of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 (1) and Article 71 of Directive 2014//24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014, (2) which do not contemplate any limits on the proportion of the contract that may be subcontracted or on the reduction in prices that may be applied to subcontractors, and the EU-law principle of proportionality preclude the application of national rules on public procurement, such as the Italian rules contained in Article 118(2) and (4) of Legislative Decree No 163 of 12 April 2006, pursuant to which no more than 30 % of the total value of the contract may be subcontracted and the successful contractor must apply in respect of the subcontracted services the same unit prices as those stipulated in the decision awarding the contract, with a reduction of not more than 20 %?

         (1)  Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114).

         (2)  Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65).


title: Case C-320/18 P: Appeal brought on 14 May 2018 by Crocs, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 14 March 2018 in Case T-651/16: Crocs v EUIPO

text:
               10.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/12

      Appeal brought on 14 May 2018 by Crocs, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 14 March 2018 in Case T-651/16: Crocs v EUIPO
      (Case C-320/18 P)
      (2018/C 319/15)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellant: Crocs, Inc. (represented by: J. Guise, Solicitor, D. Knight, Solicitor)

         Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Gifi Diffusion

         Form of order sought

      The appellant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision.

                  —

                  In the event that the Court of Justice upholds the first plea in law, the appellant requests that the Court additionally annuls the Board of Appeal Decision and upholds the First Instance Decision.

                  —

                  In the event that the Court of Justice upholds the second plea in law, the appellant requests that the contested decision be set aside and the General Court be instructed to restrict its consideration to the factual and legal questions addressed in the Board of Appeal Decision. If the General Court concludes that it cannot uphold the Board of Appeal Decision when the Website Disclosures are considered in isolation, then the appellant requests that it refer the matter back to the Board of Appeal for further consideration as to whether, in light of the evidence provided, the Fort Lauderdale Disclosures and Sales Disclosures fall within the Article 7 (1) exception.

                  —

                  In the event that the Court of Justice upholds the third plea in law, the appellant requests that the Contested Decision be set aside as regards the application of Article 7 and the General Court be instructed to re-assess the evidence giving proper force to the wording of Article 7 and applying a balance of probabilities test.

                  —

                  In the event that the Court of Justice upholds the fourth plea in law, the appellant requests that the Contested Decision be annulled and the matter remitted to a different Chamber of the General Court for further consideration.

                  —

                  The appellant further requests that the Court of Justice makes an award of costs in its favour pursuant to Article 137 and 184 the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

                  1)

                     First Plea in Law — Infringement of Article 63 CDR

                  The General Court erred in is interpretation and application of Article 63 by failing to annul the Board of Appeal Decision as far as it allowed admission of new evidence.

                  2)

                     Second Plea in Law — Infringement of Article 61 CDR

                  The General Court infringed Article 61 by in effect determining factual questions which had not been determined by the Board of Appeal in its decision and were not within the scope of the appeal. As such the General Court went outside of its jurisdiction to annul or alter the Board of Appeal Decision.

                  3)

                     Third Plea in Law — Infringement of Article 7 CDR

                  The General Court infringed Article 7 by applying the wrong standard of proof. In doing so, the General Court also suggested that the test requires specific items of evidence, rather than applying the legal test to the evidence as filed in the proceedings. Finally, the General Court incorrectly dismissed the appellant's argument that a quantitative factor may be taken into consideration when applying Article 7.

                  4)

                     Fourth Plea in Law — Irregular Constitution of the General Court (Seventh Chamber)

                  The Seventh Chamber of the General Court was improperly constituted. Judge Kornezov had been appointed to the General Court from the Civil Service Tribunal in 2016. However, it has since been found that Judge Kornezov's appointment to the Civil Service Tribunal was vitiated by a procedural error. Had Judge Kornezov not been sitting on the Civil Service Tribunal in 2016, his appointment to the General Court would not have been possible before 2019. As such, it appears that his appointment to the General Court is also vitiated by a procedural error. The Contested Decision must therefore be set aside and the matter remitted back to a different Chamber of the General Court.

         (1)  Article 7 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs (OJ 2002, L 3, p. 1) (‘CDR’).


title: Case C-629/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — proceedings brought by CX (Reference for a preliminary ruling — International road transport — Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey — Article 9 — Additional Protocol — Articles 41 and 42 — Freedom to provide services — Standstill clause — Decision No 1/95 of the EC-Turkey Association Council — Articles 5 and 7 — Free movement of goods — National legislation restricting the right of road haulage undertakings with their seat in Turkey to operate their vehicles in the territory of the Member State concerned — Obligation to obtain an authorisation issued within the limits of a quota determined on the basis of a bilateral agreement concluded between that Member State and Turkey or a permit granted for a single transport of substantial public interest)

text:
               10.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/4

      Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — proceedings brought by CX
      (Case C-629/16) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - International road transport - Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey - Article 9 - Additional Protocol - Articles 41 and 42 - Freedom to provide services - Standstill clause - Decision No 1/95 of the EC-Turkey Association Council - Articles 5 and 7 - Free movement of goods - National legislation restricting the right of road haulage undertakings with their seat in Turkey to operate their vehicles in the territory of the Member State concerned - Obligation to obtain an authorisation issued within the limits of a quota determined on the basis of a bilateral agreement concluded between that Member State and Turkey or a permit granted for a single transport of substantial public interest))
      (2018/C 319/04)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Verwaltungsgerichtshof

         Parties to the main proceedings

      CX

         Other party: Bezirkshauptmannschaft Schärding

         Operative part of the judgment

      The provisions of the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey signed on 12 September 1963 at Ankara by the Republic of Turkey, of the one part, and the Member States of the EEC and the Community, of the other part, concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Decision 64/732/EEC of 23 December 1963, the Additional Protocol signed on 23 November 1970 at Brussels, concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2760/72 of 19 December 1972, and Decision No 1/95 of the EC-Turkey Association Council of 22 December 1995 on implementing the final phase of the Customs Union must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which road haulage undertakings with their seat in Turkey can transport goods by road to that Member State or through its territory only if they have passes issued within the limits of a quota determined for such transport on the basis of the bilateral agreement concluded between that Member State and the Republic of Turkey or if a permit has been granted to them on the ground of substantial public interest, provided that that legislation is not a new restriction on the freedom to provide services within the meaning of Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol, which is for the referring court to ascertain.

         (1)  OJ C 104, 3.4.2017.


title: Case C-89/17: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) London — United Kingdom) — Secretary of State for the Home Department v Rozanne Banger (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Citizenship of the European Union — Article 21 TFEU — Right of Union citizens to move and reside freely within the territory of the European Union — Directive 2004/38/EC — Point (b) of the first subparagraph of Article 3(2) — Partner with whom the Union citizen has a duly-attested durable relationship — Return to the Member State of which the Union citizen is a national — Application for residence authorisation — Extensive examination of the applicant’s personal circumstances — Articles 15 and 31 — Effective judicial protection — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 47)

text:
               10.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/9

      Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) London — United Kingdom) — Secretary of State for the Home Department v Rozanne Banger
      (Case C-89/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Citizenship of the European Union - Article 21 TFEU - Right of Union citizens to move and reside freely within the territory of the European Union - Directive 2004/38/EC - Point (b) of the first subparagraph of Article 3(2) - Partner with whom the Union citizen has a duly-attested durable relationship - Return to the Member State of which the Union citizen is a national - Application for residence authorisation - Extensive examination of the applicant’s personal circumstances - Articles 15 and 31 - Effective judicial protection - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 47))
      (2018/C 319/10)
      Language of the case: English

         Referring court

      Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) London

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Secretary of State for the Home Department

         Defendant: Rozanne Banger

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Article 21(1) TFEU must be interpreted as requiring the Member State of which a Union citizen is a national to facilitate the provision of a residence authorisation to the unregistered partner, a third-country national with whom that Union citizen has a durable relationship that is duly attested, where the Union citizen, having exercised his right of freedom of movement to work in a second Member State, in accordance with the conditions laid down in Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC, returns with his partner to the Member State of which he is a national in order to reside there.

                  2.

                  Article 21(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that a decision to refuse a residence authorisation to the third-country national and unregistered partner of a Union citizen, where that Union citizen, having exercised his right of freedom of movement to work in a second Member State, in accordance with the conditions laid down in Directive 2004/38, returns with his partner to the Member State of which he is a national in order to reside there, must be founded on an extensive examination of the applicant’s personal circumstances and be justified by reasons.

                  3.

                  Article 3(2) of Directive 2004/38 must be interpreted as meaning that the third-country nationals envisaged in that provision must have available to them a redress procedure in order to challenge a decision to refuse a residence authorisation taken against them, following which the national court must be able to ascertain whether the refusal decision is based on a sufficiently solid factual basis and whether the procedural safeguards were complied with. Those safeguards include the obligation for the competent national authorities to undertake an extensive examination of the applicant’s personal circumstances and to justify any denial of entry or residence.

         (1)  OJ C 129, 24.4.2017.


title: Case T-419/18: Action brought on 10 July 2018 — Crédit agricole and Crédit agricole Corporate and Investment Bank v Commission

text:
               10.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/19

      Action brought on 10 July 2018 — Crédit agricole and Crédit agricole Corporate and Investment Bank v Commission
      (Case T-419/18)
      (2018/C 319/23)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicants: Crédit agricole SA (Montrouge, France) and Crédit agricole Corporate and Investment Bank (Montrouge) (represented by J.-P. Tran Thiet, M. Powell, J. Jourdan and J.-J. Lemonnier, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicants claim that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the decision in so far as it rejects the applications for confidential treatment made by the applicants;

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay all the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of their action against Commission Decision C(2018) 2743 final of 27 April 2018 concerning objections to the disclosure of information submitted by the applicants on the basis of Article 8 of Decision 2011/695/EU of the President of the European Commission of 13 October 2011 (OJ 2011, L 275, p. 29) on the function and terms of reference of the hearing officer in certain competition proceedings (Case AT.39914 — Euro Interest Rate Derivatives (EIRD)), the applicants put forward two pleas in law.

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging that the publication of information concerning the applicants relating to discussions between traders before the infringement period breaches the presumption of innocence. In that regard, the Commission is not entitled to publish a decision containing allusions to infringing conduct that the applicants cannot challenge. The contested decision thus erred in law in rejecting the requests for confidential treatment of the applicants concerning that information.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging that the publication, before a ruling on the merits by the Court in Case T-113/17, Crédit agricole et Crédit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank v Commission, of information alluding to infringing conduct by the applicants, which they dispute before the Court, constitutes an infringement of the presumption of innocence. The contested decision therefore erred in law in rejecting the applications for confidential treatment made by the applicants concerning that information.


title: Case C-420/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof ’s-Hertogenbosch (Netherlands) lodged on 26 June 2018 — IO, other party: Inspecteur van de rijksbelastingdienst

text:
               10.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/13

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof ’s-Hertogenbosch (Netherlands) lodged on 26 June 2018 — IO, other party: Inspecteur van de rijksbelastingdienst
      (Case C-420/18)
      (2018/C 319/16)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Referring court

      Gerechtshof ’s-Hertogenbosch

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: IO

         Other party: Inspecteur van de rijksbelastingdienst

         Question referred

      Does a member of the Supervisory Board of a foundation, who is in a subordinate position in regard to that Board for his employment and remuneration conditions, but who is otherwise not in a subordinate position in regard to the Supervisory Board or the foundation, carry out his economic activities independently within the meaning of Article 9 and Article 10 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 26 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax?

         (1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


title: Case T-469/17: Order of the General Court of 11 July 2018 — The Scotch Whisky Association v EUIPO — José Estévez (JOHN COR)

text:
               10.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/26

      Order of the General Court of 11 July 2018 — The Scotch Whisky Association v EUIPO — José Estévez (JOHN COR)
      (Case T-469/17) (1)

      (2018/C 319/32)
      Language of the case: Spanish
      The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 309, 18.9.2017.


title: Case C-438/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) (Portugal) lodged on 4 July 2018 — Galeria Parque Nascente-Exploração de Espaços Comerciais S.A. v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

text:
               10.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/14

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) (Portugal) lodged on 4 July 2018 — Galeria Parque Nascente-Exploração de Espaços Comerciais S.A. v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira
      (Case C-438/18)
      (2018/C 319/17)
      Language of the case: Portuguese

         Referring court

      Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD)

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Galeria Parque Nascente-Exploração de Espaços Comerciais S.A.

         Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  If Article 23(1)(c) of the Corporation Tax Code, in the version in force in 2013, and Article 23(1) and (2)(c) of that code, in the version in force in 2014, are interpreted as meaning that, after the ‘reverse merger’ in question, the interest on the loans taken out with third parties (which but for the merger would be deductible by the company now being acquired), in order to purchase the shares of the subsidiary which is now the acquiring company, and transferred as a result of the merger, ceases to be deductible for tax purposes from the profits of the acquiring company, will those provisions be compatible with Community law, in particular having regard to the fact that that non-deductibility of the interest may constitute an impediment or restriction to the merger operations encompassed by Council Directive 2009/133/EC, (1) infringing the principles and objectives of that directive, as well as Article 4 thereof?

                  2.

                  If the first question is answered to the effect that that non-deduction of interest for tax purposes is compatible with the directive, will that answer remain unchanged by the fact that such a correction was not made on the basis of the anti-abuse provision of the directive (Article 15) or the national law reproducing it (Article 73(10) of the Corporation Tax Code), but another provision of national law (Article 23 of the Corporation Tax Code)?

         (1)  Council Directive 2009/133/EC of 19 October 2009 on the common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, partial divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States and to the transfer of the registered office of an SE or SCE between Member States (OJ 2009 L 310, p. 34).


title: Case T-10/18: Order of the General Court of 11 July 2018 — Eesti Apteekide Ühendus v Commission

text:
               10.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/26

      Order of the General Court of 11 July 2018 — Eesti Apteekide Ühendus v Commission
      (Case T-10/18) (1)

      (2018/C 319/33)
      Language of the case: English
      The President of the Ninth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 104, 19.3.2018.


title: Case C-154/17: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 11 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa — Latvia) — SIA ‘E LATS’ v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 311(1)(1) — Special arrangements for second-hand goods — Definition of ‘second-hand goods’ — Goods containing precious metals or precious stones resold by a trader — Processing of those goods after sale — Recovery of the precious metals or precious stones — Concept of ‘precious metals or precious stones’)

text:
               10.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/10

      Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 11 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa — Latvia) — SIA ‘E LATS’ v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests
      (Case C-154/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 311(1)(1) - Special arrangements for second-hand goods - Definition of ‘second-hand goods’ - Goods containing precious metals or precious stones resold by a trader - Processing of those goods after sale - Recovery of the precious metals or precious stones - Concept of ‘precious metals or precious stones’))
      (2018/C 319/11)
      Language of the case: Latvian

         Referring court

      Augstākā tiesa

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: SIA ‘E LATS’

         Respondent: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 311(1)(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘second-hand goods’ does not cover used goods containing precious metals or precious stones if those goods are no longer capable of performing their initial function and have retained only the functionalities inherent in those metals and stones, which is for the national court to determine taking into account all the objective circumstances relevant in each individual case.

         (1)  OJ C 195, 19.6.2017.


title: Case T-103/18: Order of the General Court of 6 July 2018 — S & V Technologies v EUIPO — Smoothline (Smoothline)

text:
               10.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/27

      Order of the General Court of 6 July 2018 — S & V Technologies v EUIPO — Smoothline (Smoothline)
      (Case T-103/18) (1)

      (2018/C 319/34)
      Language of the case: German
      The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 134, 16.4.2018.


title: Case T-428/18: Action brought on 12 July 2018 — McDreams Hotel v EUIPO — McDonald’s International Property (mc dreams hotels Träumen zum kleinen Preis!)

text:
               10.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/20

      Action brought on 12 July 2018 — McDreams Hotel v EUIPO — McDonald’s International Property (mc dreams hotels Träumen zum kleinen Preis!)
      (Case T-428/18)
      (2018/C 319/24)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: McDreams Hotel GmbH (Feldkirchen, Germany) (represented by: S. Schenk, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: McDonald’s International Property Co. Ltd (Wilmington, Delaware, United States).

         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 figurative mark mc dreams hotels Träumen zum kleinen Preis! — Application for registration No 1 47 35 435

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 April 2018 in Case R 972/2017-2.

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order the defendant to bear the applicant’s costs.

         Plea in law

                  —

                  Infringement of Art. 8(1)(b) and Art. 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.


title: Case C-451/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Győri Ítélőtábla (Hungary) lodged on 10 July 2018 — Tibor-Trans Fuvarozó és Kereskedelmi Kft. v DAF TRUCKS N.V.

text:
               10.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/15

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Győri Ítélőtábla (Hungary) lodged on 10 July 2018 — Tibor-Trans Fuvarozó és Kereskedelmi Kft. v DAF TRUCKS N.V.
      (Case C-451/18)
      (2018/C 319/18)
      Language of the case: Hungarian

         Referring court

      Győri Ítélőtábla

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Tibor-Trans Fuvarozó és Kereskedelmi Kft.

         Defendant: DAF TRUCKS N.V.

         Questions referred

      Should the rule on special jurisdiction laid down in Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (1) be interpreted as meaning that the court of a Member State has jurisdiction as the court for the ‘place where the harmful event occurred’, where:

                  —

                  the domicile or principal place of economic activity or of the financial interests of the applicant who claims to have suffered the damage or loss is in the State in question;

                  —

                  the claim brought by the applicant — which is against a single defendant, namely a truck manufacturer domiciled in another Member State — is based on an infringement [established] by [a decision of] the European Commission under Article 101(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (formerly Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty), consisting of collusive arrangements on pricing and gross price increases in the European Economic Area, and the decision is addressed to other parties in addition to the defendant;

                  —

                  the applicant only purchased trucks manufactured by other undertakings involved in the cartel;

                  —

                  there is nothing to show that any of the meetings that were found to restrict competition were held in the State of the court seised;

                  —

                  the applicant generally purchased the trucks — in its view, at distorted prices — in the State of the court seised, and to that end it entered into financial leasing agreements involving definite transfer of ownership with undertakings that operated in that State but, according to its own statements, the applicant negotiated directly with the vehicle dealerships, and the lessor added its own profit margin and the leasing costs onto the prices agreed by the applicant, and the right of ownership over the vehicles was transferred to the applicant on completion of the leasing agreement, when it expired?

         (1)  OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1.


title: Case C-574/17: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 July 2018 — European Commission v Combaro SA (Appeal — Customs union — Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 — Article 239 — Remission of import duties — Import of linen fabrics from Latvia between 1999 and 2002 — Special situation — Supervision and monitoring obligations — Corruption alleged of the customs authorities — Inauthentic movement certificate — Mutual trust)

text:
               17.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/21

      Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 July 2018 — European Commission v Combaro SA
      (Case C-574/17) (1)

      ((Appeal - Customs union - Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Article 239 - Remission of import duties - Import of linen fabrics from Latvia between 1999 and 2002 - Special situation - Supervision and monitoring obligations - Corruption alleged of the customs authorities - Inauthentic movement certificate - Mutual trust))
      (2018/C 328/26)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: European Commission (represented by A. Caeiros and B.-R. Killmann, acting as Agents)

         Defendant: Combaro SA (represented by: D. Ehle, Rechtsanwalt)

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 19 July 2017, Combaro v Commission (T-752/14, EU:T:2017:529);

                  2.

                  Dismisses the action brought by Combaro SA;

                  3.

                  Orders Combaro SA to bear its own costs as well as those incurred by the European Commission.

         (1)  OJ C 382, 13.11.2017.


title: Case T-439/14: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — LS Cable & System v Commission (Competition — Agreement, decisions and concerted practices — European market for power cables — Single and continuous infringement — Sufficient proof — Contributing to the single objective of the infringement — Knowledge of key elements of the infringement — Calculation of the fine — Basic amount — Paragraph 18 of the Guidelines — Gravity of the infringement — Proportionality — Mitigating circumstances — Unlimited jurisdiction)

text:
               17.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/33

      Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — LS Cable & System v Commission
      (Case T-439/14) (1)

      ((Competition - Agreement, decisions and concerted practices - European market for power cables - Single and continuous infringement - Sufficient proof - Contributing to the single objective of the infringement - Knowledge of key elements of the infringement - Calculation of the fine - Basic amount - Paragraph 18 of the Guidelines - Gravity of the infringement - Proportionality - Mitigating circumstances - Unlimited jurisdiction))
      (2018/C 328/44)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: LS Cable & System Ltd (Anyang-si, South Korea) (represented by: S. Kinsella and S. Spinks, Solicitors)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: C. Giolito, A. Biolan and N. Khan, and subsequently by N. Khan and H. van Vliet, acting as Agents, and by B. Rayment, Barrister)

         Re:

      Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 final of 2 April 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39610 — Power cables) in so far as it concerns the applicant and, in the alternative, a reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders LS Cable & System Ltd to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 282, 25.8.2014.


title: Case C-492/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 27 July 2018 — Openbaar Ministerie v TC

text:
               22.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 381/7

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 27 July 2018 — Openbaar Ministerie v TC
      (Case C-492/18)
      (2018/C 381/09)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Referring court

      Rechtbank Amsterdam

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Openbaar Ministerie

         Defendant: TC

         Question referred

      In a case in which:

                  —

                  the executing Member State has transposed Article 17 of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA (1) in such a way that the detention pending surrender of the requested person must in all cases be suspended once the 90-day period for taking a final decision on the execution of the European arrest warrant has expired and

                  —

                  the courts of that Member State have interpreted domestic law as meaning that the decision period is suspended as soon as the executing judicial authority decides to refer a question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling or to await the reply to a question referred for a preliminary ruling by another executing judicial authority or to postpone the decision on surrender owing to a real danger of inhuman or degrading detention conditions in the issuing Member State,

            does the maintenance of the detention pending surrender of a requested person who represents a flight risk once that detention has continued for more than 90 days after that person’s arrest contravene Article 6 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?

         (1)  Council Framework Decision 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 (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1).


title: Case T-112/17: Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2018 — Pelikan v EUIPO — NBA Properties (NEW ORLEANS PELICANS) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark NEW ORLEANS PELICANS — Earlier EU word marks and earlier national figurative mark Pelikan — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

text:
               22.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 381/23

      Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2018 — Pelikan v EUIPO — NBA Properties (NEW ORLEANS PELICANS)
      (Case T-112/17) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark NEW ORLEANS PELICANS - Earlier EU word marks and earlier national figurative mark Pelikan - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
      (2018/C 381/26)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Pelikan Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG (Hanover, Germany) (represented by: U. Hildebrandt, lawyer)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: NBA Properties, Inc. (New York, New York, United States) (represented initially by: M. Chapple, and subsequently by T. Elias, Barristers)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 December 2016 (Case R 408/2016-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Pelikan Vertriebsgesellschaft and NBA Properties.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Pelikan Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 129, 24.4.2017.


title: Case C-556/18: Action brought on 30 August 2018 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               22.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 381/18

      Action brought on 30 August 2018 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
      (Case C-556/18)
      (2018/C 381/19)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Manhaeve and S. Pardo Quintillán, acting as Agents)

         Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  Declare, in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 258 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, that the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13(7), read in conjunction with Articles 13(1), 14 and 15(1) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, (1) by failing to comply with its public information and consultation obligation to review and update river basin management plans and by failing to adopt, publish and communicate to the Commission the revised and updated river basin management plans for the river basin districts of Lanzarote, Fuerteventura, Gran Canaria, Tenerife, La Gomera, La Palma and el Hierro.

                  —

                  Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In accordance with Article 25 of Directive 2000/60/EC, that directive entered into force on the date of its publication in the Official Journal, namely on 22 December 2000. As a result, the river basin management plans had to be published, in accordance with Article 13(6) of the directive, by 22 December 2009 at the latest and, in accordance with Article 13(7) thereof, be reviewed and updated for the first time by 22 December 2015 at the latest.
      The Commission is of the view that the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under the articles cited above of Directive 2000/60/EC by failing to comply with its public information and consultation obligation to review and update river basin management plans and by failing to adopt, publish and communicate to the Commission the revised and updated river basin management plans for the river basin districts of Lanzarote, Fuerteventura, Gran Canaria, Tenerife, La Gomera, La Palma and el Hierro within the two-month period set out in its reasoned opinion of 5 October 2017.

         (1)  OJ 2000 L 327, p. 1.


title: Case C-494/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 27 July 2018 — Bondora AS v XY

text:
               22.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 381/8

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 27 July 2018 — Bondora AS v XY
      (Case C-494/18)
      (2018/C 381/10)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Referring court

      Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Barcelona

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Bondora AS

         Defendant: XY

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Is national legislation such as section 4 of [Final Provision] 23 of the [Spanish Civil Procedure Act], which does not permit a contract or an itemisation of the debt to be provided or required in a claim in which the defendant is a consumer and where there is evidence that the sums being claimed could be based on unfair terms, compatible with Article 38 of the [Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union], Article 6(1) [TEU] and Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Directive [93/13/EEC]? (1)

                  2.

                  Is it compatible with Article 7(2)(d) of Regulation 1896/2006, establishing a European payment order procedure, (2) to require the applicant, in a claim against a consumer, to specify the itemisation of the debt he is claiming in section 11 of standard form A? Is it also compatible with that provision to require that the content of the contractual terms on the basis of which the applicant is making a claim against a consumer, beyond the principal subject matter of the contract, be reproduced in section 11 in order to assess whether they are unfair?

                  3.

                  If the answer to question two is negative, can the CJEU state whether it is permissible, under the current wording of Regulation 1896/2006, to assess ex officio, prior to the grant of a European payment order, whether unfair terms are being applied in a contract with a consumer, and the legal basis on which that assessment may be carried out?

                  4.

                  In the event that it is not possible to assess ex officio, under the current wording of Regulation 1896/2006, the existence of unfair terms prior to granting a European payment order, the CJEU is asked to rule on the validity of the Regulation referred to and on whether it is contrary to Article 38 of the Charter and Article 6(1) [TEU].

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

         (2)  Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure (OJ 2006 L 399, p. 1).


title: Case T-14/16: Judgment of the General Court of 11 September 2018 — Apimab Laboratoires and Others v Commission (Consumer protection — Setting of maximum levels for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in food supplements — Regulation (EEC) No 315/93 — Risk analysis — Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 — Manifest error of assessment — Proportionality — Principle of non-discrimination)

text:
               22.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 381/19

      Judgment of the General Court of 11 September 2018 — Apimab Laboratoires and Others v Commission
      (Case T-14/16) (1)

      ((Consumer protection - Setting of maximum levels for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in food supplements - Regulation (EEC) No 315/93 - Risk analysis - Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 - Manifest error of assessment - Proportionality - Principle of non-discrimination))
      (2018/C 381/20)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicants: Apimab Laboratoires (Clermont-l’Hérault, France) and the seven other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to the judgment (represented by: A. de Brosses, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Herbout-Borczak and C. Valero, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action brought under Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment in part of Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/1933 of 27 October 2015 amending Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 as regards maximum levels for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in cocoa fibre, banana chips, food supplements, dried herbs and dried spices (OJ 2015 L 282, p. 11).

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Apimab Laboratoires and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

         (1)  OJ C 90, 7.3.2016.