title: C-33/18: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Liège — Belgium) — V v Institut national d'assurances sociales pour travailleurs indépendants (Inasti), Securex Integrity ASBL (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Coordination of social security systems — Migrant workers — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Transitional provisions — Article 87(8) — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Article 14c(b) — Worker exercising an activity as an employed and an activity as a self-employed person in different Member States — Derogations from the principle of a single applicable national legislation — Double affiliation — Application to be subject to the legislation applicable under Regulation No 883/2004)

text:
               5.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 263/10

      Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Liège — Belgium) — V v Institut national d'assurances sociales pour travailleurs indépendants (Inasti), Securex Integrity ASBL
      (C-33/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Coordination of social security systems - Migrant workers - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Transitional provisions - Article 87(8) - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Article 14c(b) - Worker exercising an activity as an employed and an activity as a self-employed person in different Member States - Derogations from the principle of a single applicable national legislation - Double affiliation - Application to be subject to the legislation applicable under Regulation No 883/2004)
      (2019/C 263/12)
      Language of the case: French

         Referring court

      Cour du travail de Liège

         Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: V

         Defendant: Institut national d'assurances sociales pour travailleurs indépendants, Securex Integrity ASBL

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 87(8) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 988/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that a person who, at the date of application of Regulation No 883/2004, exercised as activity as an employed person in one Member State and an activity as a self-employed person in another Member State, thereby being simultaneously subject to legislations applicable to social security in those two Member States, should not, in order to be subject to the legislation applicable under Regulation No 883/2004, as amended by Regulation No 988/2009, submit an express application to that effect.

         (1)  OJ C 112, 26.3.2018.


title: Case C-43/18: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État — Belgium) — Compagnie d'entreprises CFE SA v Région de Bruxelles-Capitale (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Directive 2001/42/EC — Assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment — Order — Designation of a special area of conservation in accordance with Directive 92/43/EEC — Establishment of conservation objectives and certain preventive measures — Notion of ‘plans and programmes’ — Obligation to undertake an environmental assessment)

text:
               5.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 263/11

      Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État — Belgium) — Compagnie d'entreprises CFE SA v Région de Bruxelles-Capitale
      (Case C-43/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Directive 2001/42/EC - Assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment - Order - Designation of a special area of conservation in accordance with Directive 92/43/EEC - Establishment of conservation objectives and certain preventive measures - Notion of ‘plans and programmes’ - Obligation to undertake an environmental assessment)
      (2019/C 263/13)
      Language of the case: French

         Referring court

      Conseil d'État

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Compagnie d'entreprises CFE SA

         Defendant: Région de Bruxelles-Capitale

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 3(2) and (4) of Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment must be interpreted as meaning that, subject to the verifications to be made by the referring court, an order such as that at issue in the main proceedings, by which a Member State designates a special area of conservation (SAC) and establishes conservation objectives as well as certain preventive measures, does not fall within ‘plans and programmes’ for which an assessment of the effects on the environment is obligatory.

         (1)  OJ C 112, 26.3.2018.


title: Case C-142/18: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 5 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the cour d’appel de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Skype Communications Sàrl v Institut belge des services postaux et des télécommunications (IBPT) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Electronic communications networks and services — Directive 2002/21/EC — Article 2(c) — Notion of ‘electronic communications service’ — Transmission of signals — Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) service to fixed or mobile telephone numbers — SkypeOut service)

text:
               5.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 263/13

      Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 5 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the cour d’appel de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Skype Communications Sàrl v Institut belge des services postaux et des télécommunications (IBPT)
      (Case C-142/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Electronic communications networks and services - Directive 2002/21/EC - Article 2(c) - Notion of ‘electronic communications service’ - Transmission of signals - Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) service to fixed or mobile telephone numbers - SkypeOut service)
      (2019/C 263/15)
      Language of the case: French

         Referring court

      Cour d’appel de Bruxelles

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Skype Communications Sàrl

         Defendant: Institut belge des services postaux et des télécommunications (IBPT)

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 2(c) of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive), as amended by Directive 2009/140/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that the provision, by a software publisher, of a feature offering a Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) service which allows the user to call a fixed or mobile number covered by a national numbering plan from a terminal via the public switched telephone network (PSTN) of a Member State constitutes an ‘electronic communications service’ within the meaning of that provision, provided that, first, the software publisher is remunerated for the provision of that service and, second, the provision of that service involves the conclusion of agreements between that software publisher and telecommunications service providers that are duly authorised to send and terminate calls to the PSTN.

         (1)  OJ C 161, 7.5.2018.


title: Case C-185/18: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Oro Efectivo SL v Diputación Foral de Bizkaia (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 401 — Principle of fiscal neutrality — Acquisition by an undertaking, from private individuals, of objects with a high gold or other precious metal content with a view to resale — Duty on transfers of assets)

text:
               5.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 263/13

      Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Oro Efectivo SL v Diputación Foral de Bizkaia
      (Case C-185/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 401 - Principle of fiscal neutrality - Acquisition by an undertaking, from private individuals, of objects with a high gold or other precious metal content with a view to resale - Duty on transfers of assets)
      (2019/C 263/16)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Referring court

      Tribunal Supremo

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Oro Efectivo SL

         Defendant: Diputación Foral de Bizkaia

         Operative part of the judgment

      Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax and the principle of fiscal neutrality must be interpreted as not precluding a national rule of law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which subjects to an indirect tax on asset transfers, other than value added tax, the acquisition by an undertaking, from private individuals, of objects with a high gold or other precious metal content, where those assets are intended for use in the economic activities of that undertaking, which, with a view to their being processed and placed back on the market, resells them to undertakings specialising in the manufacture of ingots or a variety of items made from precious metals.

         (1)  OJ C 182, 28.5.2018.


title: Case C-193/18: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen — Germany) — Google LLC v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Electronic communications networks and services — Directive 2002/21/EC — Article 2(c) — Concept of ‘electronic communications service’ — Conveyance of signals — Web-based email service — Gmail service)

text:
               5.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 263/14

      Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen — Germany) — Google LLC v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
      (Case C-193/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Electronic communications networks and services - Directive 2002/21/EC - Article 2(c) - Concept of ‘electronic communications service’ - Conveyance of signals - Web-based email service - Gmail service)
      (2019/C 263/17)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Google LLC

         Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 2(c) of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive), as amended by Directive 2009/140/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that a web-based email service which does not itself provide internet access, such as the Gmail service provided by Google LLC, does not consist wholly or mainly in the conveyance of signals on electronic communications networks and therefore does not constitute an ‘electronic communications service’ within the meaning of that provision.

         (1)  OJ C 211, 18.6.2018.


title: Case C-223/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 June 2019 — Deichmann SE v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Munich SL (Appeal — EU trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Revocation proceedings — Figurative mark representing a cross on the side of a sports shoe — Rejection of the application for revocation)

text:
               5.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 263/15

      Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 June 2019 — Deichmann SE v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Munich SL
      (Case C-223/18 P) (1)

      (Appeal - EU trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Revocation proceedings - Figurative mark representing a cross on the side of a sports shoe - Rejection of the application for revocation)
      (2019/C 263/18)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellant: Deichmann SE (represented by: C. Onken, Rechtsanwältin)

         Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: D. Gája, acting as Agent), Munich SL (represented by: J. Güell Serra and M. del Mar Guix Vilanova, abogados)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the appeal;

                  2.

                  Orders Deichmann SE to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 249, 16.7.2018.


title: Case C-264/18: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Grondwettelijk Hof — Belgium) — P. M., N. G.d.M., P. V.d.S. v Ministerraad (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts — Directive 2014/24/EU — Article 10, (c), and (d)(i),(ii) and (v) — Validity — Scope — Exclusion of arbitration and conciliation services and of certain legal services — Principles of equal treatment and subsidiarity — Articles 49 and 56 TFEU)

text:
               5.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 263/16

      Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Grondwettelijk Hof — Belgium) — P. M., N. G.d.M., P. V.d.S. v Ministerraad
      (Case C-264/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts - Directive 2014/24/EU - Article 10, (c), and (d)(i),(ii) and (v) - Validity - Scope - Exclusion of arbitration and conciliation services and of certain legal services - Principles of equal treatment and subsidiarity - Articles 49 and 56 TFEU)
      (2019/C 263/19)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Referring court

      Grondwettelijk Hof

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: P. M., N. G.d.M., P. V.d.S.

         Defendant: Ministerraad

         Operative part of the judgment

      The examination of the question referred has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of the provisions of Article 10(c) and (d)(i),(ii) and (v) of Directive 2014/24/EU, of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC, having regard to the principles of equal treatment and subsidiarity, and also Articles 49 and 56 TFEU.

         (1)  OJ C 276, 6.8.2018.


title: Case C-317/18: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Faro) — Cátia Correia Moreira v Município de Portimão (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2001/23/EC — Transfers of undertakings — Safeguarding of employees’ rights — Concept of ‘worker’ — Substantial change in working conditions to the detriment of the employee)

text:
               5.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 263/16

      Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Faro) — Cátia Correia Moreira v Município de Portimão
      (Case C-317/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2001/23/EC - Transfers of undertakings - Safeguarding of employees’ rights - Concept of ‘worker’ - Substantial change in working conditions to the detriment of the employee)
      (2019/C 263/20)
      Language of the case: Portuguese

         Referring court

      Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Faro

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Cátia Correia Moreira

         Defendant: Município de Portimão

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses, in particular Article 2(1)(d), must be interpreted as meaning that a person who has entered into a contract for a position of trust, within the meaning of the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings, with the transferor may be regarded as an ‘employee’ and thus benefit from the protection which that directive affords, provided, however, that that person is protected as an employee by that legislation and has a contract of employment at the date of transfer, which is a matter for the referring court to determine.

                  2.

                  Directive 2001/23, read in conjunction with Article 4(2) TEU, must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes national legislation which provides that, in the event of a transfer within the meaning of that directive and where the transferee is a municipality, the employees concerned must, first, undergo a public competitive selection procedure and, secondly, have a new relationship with the transferee.

         (1)  OJ C 268, 30.7.2018.


title: Case T-390/19: Action brought on 27 June 2019 — Muscardini v Parliament

text:
               12.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 270/50

      Action brought on 27 June 2019 — Muscardini v Parliament
      (Case T-390/19)
      (2019/C 270/51)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: Cristiana Muscardini (Milan, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Parliament

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  declare non existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament redetermined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation;

                  —

                  order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount;

                  —

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

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those raised in Case T-389/19 Coppo Gavazzi v Parliament


title: Case T-391/19: Action brought on 27 June 2019 — Vinci v Parliament

text:
               12.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 270/50

      Action brought on 27 June 2019 — Vinci v Parliament
      (Case T-391/19)
      (2019/C 270/52)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: Luigi Vinci (Milan, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Parliament

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  declare non existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament redetermined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation;

                  —

                  order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount;

                  —

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

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those raised in Case T-389/19 Coppo Gavazzi v Parliament.


title: Case T-392/19: Action brought on 27 June 2019 –Mantovani v Parliament

text:
               12.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 270/51

      Action brought on 27 June 2019 –Mantovani v Parliament
      (Case T-392/19)
      (2019/C 270/53)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: Agostino Mantovani (Brescia, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Parliament

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  declare non existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament redetermined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation;

                  —

                  order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount;

                  —

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

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those raised in Case T-389/19 Coppo Gavazzi v Parliament.


title: Case T-400/19: Action brought on 28 June 2019 — Iccrea Banca v SRB

text:
               12.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 270/52

      Action brought on 28 June 2019 — Iccrea Banca v SRB
      (Case T-400/19)
      (2019/C 270/54)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

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

         Defendant: Single Resolution Board

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  a)

                  principally:

                              —

                              annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board SRB/ES/SRF/2019/10 of 16 April 2019 and, as appropriate, the annexes to that decision, as well as any other decisions of the Single Resolution Board even those of which the applicant is unaware, on the basis of which the Banca d’Italia (Bank of Italy) adopted decisions Nos 0543938/19 of 24 April 2019 and 0733800/19 of 7 June 2019;

                              —

                              order the payment of compensation to Iccrea Banca for the damage caused to it, in terms of higher rates paid, by the Single Resolution Board when determining the contributions owed by the applicant.

                  b)

                  in the alternative, and in the event that the above claims are rejected:

                              —

                              declare invalid Article 5(1)(a) and (f) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 of 21 October 2014 supplementing Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to ex ante contributions to resolution financing arrangements, (1) as being contrary to the fundamental principles of Community law, in particular the principles of equality, non-discrimination and proportionality, as enshrined in Article 2 TEU and interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Union.

                  c)

                  in any event, order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The action is directed against the decision of the Single Resolution Board SRB/ES/SRF/2019/10 of 16 April 2019 and the relevant annexes thereto as well as any subsequent decisions of the Single Resolution Board, including those of which the applicant is unaware, on the basis of which the contributions under Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 of 21 October 2014 supplementing Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to ex ante contributions to resolution financing arrangements were determined with regard to the applicant.
      In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging (i) failure to carry out a proper inquiry, (ii) error of assessment of the facts, (iii) infringement and misapplication of Article 5[(1)](a) of Regulation 2015/63, and (iv) infringement of the principles of non-discrimination and sound administration.

                              —

                              The applicant claims in this regard that the Single Resolution Board erred in its application of Article 5[(1)](a) of Regulation 2015/63 when determining the amount of the contributions owed by the applicant by not having taken intragroup liabilities into consideration.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging (i) failure to carry out a proper inquiry, (ii) error of assessment of the facts, (iii) infringement and misapplication of Article 5[(1)](f) of Regulation 2015/63, and (iv) infringement of the principles of non-discrimination and sound administration.

                              —

                              The applicant claims in this regard that the Single Resolution Board erred in its application of Article 5[(1)](f) of Regulation 2015/63, thereby resulting in double counting.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging the unlawful conduct of an EU body giving rise to non-contractual liability under Article 268 TFEU

                              —

                              The applicant claims in this regard that the conduct of the Single Resolution Board meets all the relevant conditions for non-contractual liability under EU case-law, namely unlawfulness of the alleged conduct of the institutions, the actual existence of damage, and the presence of a causal link between the adopted conduct and the alleged damage.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, in the alternative and incidentally, alleging that Regulation 2015/63 infringes the principles of effectiveness, equivalence and equal treatment and is consequently inapplicable.

                              —

                              The applicant claims in that regard that a possible contradiction between that regulation and the situation of the applicant would infringe the abovementioned principles to the extent that persons in the same factual situation as Iccrea would be subject to reductions of contributions, leading to an unlawful deterioration of the applicant’s situation, with the consequence that similar situations would be treated differently.

         (1)  OJ 2015 L 11, p. 44.


title: Case C-458/15: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 20 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Saarbrücken — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against K. P. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common foreign and security policy — Combating terrorism — Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities — Freezing of funds — Common Position 2001/931/CFSP — Article 1(4) and (6) — Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 — Article 2(3) — Council Decision retaining an organisation on the list of persons, groups and entities involved in terrorist acts — Validity)

text:
               12.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 270/2

      Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 20 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Saarbrücken — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against K. P.
      (Case C-458/15) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common foreign and security policy - Combating terrorism - Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities - Freezing of funds - Common Position 2001/931/CFSP - Article 1(4) and (6) - Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 - Article 2(3) - Council Decision retaining an organisation on the list of persons, groups and entities involved in terrorist acts - Validity)
      (2019/C 270/02)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Landgericht Saarbrücken

         Parties to the criminal proceedings against

      K. P.

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Consideration of the question referred for a preliminary ruling has disclosed no factor such as to affect the validity of:

                              —

                              Council Decision 2007/445/EC of 28 June 2007 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decisions 2006/379/EC and 2006/1008/EC;

                              —

                              Council Decision 2007/868/EC of 20 December 2007 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2007/445/EC;

                              —

                              Council Decision 2008/583/EC of 15 July 2008 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2007/868/EC; and

                              —

                              Council Decision 2009/62/EC of 26 January 2009 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2008/583/EC.

                  2.

                  Council Regulation (EC) No 501/2009 of 15 June 2009 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2009/62/EC is invalid in so far as, by that regulation, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam were kept on the list provided for in Article 2(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 of 27 December 2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism.

         (1)  OJ C 354, 26.10.2015.


title: Case C-612/16: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) — United Kingdom) — C & J Clark International Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Anti-dumping — Interpretation and validity of regulations re-imposing anti-dumping duties following the delivery by the Court of a judgment declaring invalidity — Legal basis — Non-retroactivity — Limitation)

text:
               12.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 270/3

      Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) — United Kingdom) — C & J Clark International Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs
      (Case C-612/16) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Anti-dumping - Interpretation and validity of regulations re-imposing anti-dumping duties following the delivery by the Court of a judgment declaring invalidity - Legal basis - Non-retroactivity - Limitation)
      (2019/C 270/03)
      Language of the case: English

         Referring court

      First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: C & J Clark International Ltd

         Defendant: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  An examination of the questions of validity referred to the Court has revealed nothing capable of affecting the validity of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1395 of 18 August 2016 re-imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People’s Republic of China and produced by Buckinghan Shoe Mfg Co. Ltd, Buildyet Shoes Mfg., DongGuan Elegant Top Shoes Co. Ltd, Dongguan Stella Footwear Co. Ltd, Dongguan Taiway Sports Goods Limited, Foshan City Nanhai Qun Rui Footwear Co., Jianle Footwear Industrial, Sihui Kingo Rubber Shoes Factory, Synfort Shoes Co. Ltd, Taicang Kotoni Shoes Co. Ltd, Wei Hao Shoe Co. Ltd, Wei Hua Shoe Co. Ltd, Win Profile Industries Ltd, and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in joined cases C-659/13 and C-34/14, or the validity of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1647 of 13 September 2016 re-imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in Vietnam and produced by Best Royal Co. Ltd, Lac Cuong Footwear Co., Ltd, Lac Ty Co., Ltd, Saoviet Joint Stock Company (Megastar Joint Stock Company), VMC Royal Co Ltd, Freetrend Industrial Ltd and its related company Freetrend Industrial A (Vietnam) Co, Ltd, Fulgent Sun Footwear Co., Ltd, General Shoes Ltd, Golden Star Co, Ltd, Golden Top Company Co., Ltd, Kingmaker Footwear Co. Ltd, Tripos Enterprise Inc., Vietnam Shoe Majesty Co., Ltd, and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in joined cases C-659/13 and C-34/14;

                  2.

                  The rules on limitation laid down in Article 221(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2700/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2000, are applicable to the collection of the anti-dumping duties established by the implementing regulations referred to in point 1 of the operative part of the present judgment.

         (1)  OJ C 38, 6.2.2017.


title: Case C-591/17: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 June 2019 — Republic of Austria v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Articles 18, 34, 56 and 92 TFEU — Legislation of a Member State prescribing an infrastructure use charge for passenger vehicles — Situation in which owners of vehicles registered in that Member State qualify for relief from motor vehicle tax in an amount corresponding to that charge)

text:
               12.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 270/4

      Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 June 2019 — Republic of Austria v Federal Republic of Germany
      (Case C-591/17) (1)

      (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Articles 18, 34, 56 and 92 TFEU - Legislation of a Member State prescribing an infrastructure use charge for passenger vehicles - Situation in which owners of vehicles registered in that Member State qualify for relief from motor vehicle tax in an amount corresponding to that charge)
      (2019/C 270/04)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Republic of Austria (represented by: G. Hesse, J. Schmoll and C. Drexel, acting as Agents)

         Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and S. Eisenberg, acting as Agents, and by C. Hillgruber, Rechtsanwalt)

         Intervener in support of the applicant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: J. Langer, J.M. Hoogveld and M.K. Bulterman, acting as Agents)

         Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: J. Nymann-Lindegren and M. Wolff, acting as Agents)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Declares that the Federal Republic of Germany, by introducing the infrastructure use charge for passenger vehicles and by providing, simultaneously, a relief from motor vehicle tax in an amount at least equivalent to the amount of the charge paid, to the benefit of owners of vehicles registered in Germany, failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 18, 34, 56 and 92 TFEU.

                  2.

                  Dismisses the action as to the remainder.

                  3.

                  Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay three quarters of the costs incurred by the Republic of Austria and to bear its own costs.

                  4.

                  Orders the Republic of Austria to bear one quarter of its own costs.

                  5.

                  Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Kingdom of Denmark to bear their own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 402, 27.11.2017.


title: Case C-607/17: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen — Sweden) — Skatteverket v Memira Holding AB (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Corporation tax — Group of companies — Freedom of establishment — Deduction of losses of a non-resident subsidiary — Concept of ‘final losses’ — Merger-absorption of the subsidiary by the parent company — Legislation of the State of establishment of the subsidiary granting the deduction of losses in the context of a merger solely to the entity sustaining those losses)

text:
               12.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 270/5

      Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen — Sweden) — Skatteverket v Memira Holding AB
      (Case C-607/17) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Corporation tax - Group of companies - Freedom of establishment - Deduction of losses of a non-resident subsidiary - Concept of ‘final losses’ - Merger-absorption of the subsidiary by the parent company - Legislation of the State of establishment of the subsidiary granting the deduction of losses in the context of a merger solely to the entity sustaining those losses)
      (2019/C 270/05)
      Language of the case: Swedish

         Referring court

      Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Skatteverket

         Defendant: Memira Holding AB

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  For the purposes of the assessment of the finality of the losses of a non-resident subsidiary, within the meaning of paragraph 55 of the judgment of 13 December 2005, Marks & Spencer (C-446/03, EU:C:2005:763), the fact that the subsidiary’s Member State of establishment does not allow the losses of one company to be transferred, in the event of a merger, to another company liable for corporation tax, whereas such a transfer is provided for by the Member State in which the parent company is established in the event of a merger between resident companies, is not decisive, unless the parent company demonstrates that it is impossible for it to deduct those losses by ensuring, in particular by means of a sale, that they are fiscally taken into account by a third party for future tax periods;

                  2.

                  If the fact referred to in the first question becomes relevant, the fact that there is, in the State of establishment of the subsidiary, no other entity which could have deducted those losses in the event of a merger if such a deduction had been authorised is irrelevant.

         (1)  OJ C 5, 8.1.2018.


title: Case C-619/18: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 June 2019 — European Commission v Republic of Poland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU — Rule of law — Effective judicial protection in the fields covered by Union law — Principles of the irremovability of judges and judicial independence — Lowering of the retirement age of Supreme Court judges — Application to judges in post — Possibility of continuing to carry out the duties of judge beyond that age subject to obtaining authorisation granted by discretionary decision of the President of the Republic)

text:
               19.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 280/9

      Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 June 2019 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
      (Case C-619/18) (1)

      (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU - Rule of law - Effective judicial protection in the fields covered by Union law - Principles of the irremovability of judges and judicial independence - Lowering of the retirement age of Supreme Court judges - Application to judges in post - Possibility of continuing to carry out the duties of judge beyond that age subject to obtaining authorisation granted by discretionary decision of the President of the Republic)
      (2019/C 280/11)
      Language of the case: Polish

         Parties

         Applicant: European Commission (represented by: K. Banks, H. Krämer and S.L. Kalėda, Agents)

         Defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, K. Majcher and S. Żyrek)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Declares that, first, by providing that the measure consisting in lowering the retirement age of the judges of the Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court, Poland) is to apply to judges in post who were appointed to that court before 3 April 2018 and, secondly, by granting the President of the Republic the discretion to extend the period of judicial activity of judges of that court beyond the newly fixed retirement age, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU;

                  2.

                  Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs;

                  3.

                  Declares that Hungary is to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.


title: Case C-739/18 P: Appeal brought on 28 November 2018 by Chefaro Ireland DAC against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 12 September 2018 in Case T-905/16: Chefaro Ireland DAC v EUIPO

text:
               19.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 280/14

      Appeal brought on 28 November 2018 by Chefaro Ireland DAC against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 12 September 2018 in Case T-905/16: Chefaro Ireland DAC v EUIPO
      (Case C-739/18 P)
      (2019/C 280/18)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellant: Chefaro Ireland DAC (represented by: P. Maeyaert, J. Muyldermans, advocaten)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office
      By order of 2 May 2019 the Court of Justice (Ninth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.


title: Case C-819/18 P: Appeal brought on 21 December 2018 by Next design+produktion GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 18 October 2018 in Case T-533/17, Next design+produktion GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

text:
               19.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 280/15

      Appeal brought on 21 December 2018 by Next design+produktion GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 18 October 2018 in Case T-533/17, Next design+produktion GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
      (Case C-819/18 P)
      (2019/C 280/19)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Appellant: Next design+produktion GmbH (represented by: M. Hirsch, Rechtsanwalt, M. Metzner, Rechtsanwältin)

         Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp GmbH & Co. KG
      By order of 11 July 2019, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Eighth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.


title: Case C-36/19 P: Appeal brought on 21 January 2019 by Daico International BV against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 22 November 2018 in Case T-356/17: Daico International v EUIPO — American Franchise Marketing

text:
               19.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 280/16

      Appeal brought on 21 January 2019 by Daico International BV against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 22 November 2018 in Case T-356/17: Daico International v EUIPO — American Franchise Marketing
      (Case C-36/19 P)
      (2019/C 280/21)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellant: Daico International BV (represented by: M. F. J. Haak, advocaat)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office
      By order of 4 July 2019 the Court of Justice (Seventh Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.


title: Case C-252/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Opatowie (Poland) lodged on 20 March 2019 — QL S.A. in B. v C.G.

text:
               19.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 280/18

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Opatowie (Poland) lodged on 20 March 2019 — QL S.A. in B. v C.G.
      (Case C-252/19)
      (2019/C 280/24)
      Language of the case: Polish

         Referring court

      Sąd Rejonowy w Opatowie

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: QL S.A. in B.

         Defendant: C.G.

         Question referred

      Must the provisions of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC, (1) and in particular Article 3(g) and Article 22(1) of that directive, be interpreted as precluding the introduction into national law of the concept of ‘maximum non-interest credit costs’ and the mathematical formula for calculating those costs set out in Article 5(6)(a) in conjunction with Article 36a of the Ustawa o kredycie konsumenckim z dnia 12 maja 2011 r. (Law of 12 May 2011 on Consumer Credit, consolidated text: Journal of Laws [Dz. U.] of 2018, item 993), which allow the costs of the business activity of a seller or supplier to be included in the costs related to a credit agreement that are to be borne by the consumer (the total costs of the credit)?

         (1)  OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66.


title: Case C-289/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Den Haag (Netherlands) lodged on 9 April 2019 — Dexia Nederland BV v Z

text:
               19.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 280/18

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Den Haag (Netherlands) lodged on 9 April 2019 — Dexia Nederland BV v Z
      (Case C-289/19)
      (2019/C 280/25)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Referring court

      Gerechtshof Den Haag

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: Dexia Nederland BV
      Respondent: Z

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Can the user of an unfair term relating to the payment of compensation in the event of a consumer’s non-compliance with his obligations, which has been declared void, claim the legal compensation provided for by way of supplementary law?

                  2.

                  For the purpose of answering that question, does it matter whether the compensation that can be claimed by the application of the statutory compensation scheme is equal to or lower or higher than the compensation under the term which has been declared void?


title: Case C-335/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 24 April 2019 — E. Sp. z o.o. Sp. k., having its seat in S. v Minister Finansów

text:
               19.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 280/20

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 24 April 2019 — E. Sp. z o.o. Sp. k., having its seat in S. v Minister Finansów
      (Case C-335/19)
      (2019/C 280/27)
      Language of the case: Polish

         Referring court

      Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: E. Sp. z o.o. Sp. k., having its seat in S.

         Defendant: Minister Finansów

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Do the provisions of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) — and in particular Article 90(2) thereof — having regard to the principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality, permit the introduction into national law of a restriction on the ability to reduce the taxable amount in the event of partial or total non-payment by reason of the specific tax status of the debtor and the creditor?

                  2.

                  In particular, does EU law not preclude the introduction of a rule in national legislation which provides for the option of taking advantage of ‘bad debt relief’ only on condition that on the date on which the service or goods are supplied and on the day preceding the date on which the tax return adjustment is filed in order to benefit from this relief:

                              —

                              the debtor is not subject to insolvency or liquidation proceedings?

                              —

                              the creditor and debtor are both registered as active VAT taxpayers?

         (1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


title: Case C-370/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 10 May 2019 — GE v Société Air France

text:
               19.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 280/23

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 10 May 2019 — GE v Société Air France
      (Case C-370/19)
      (2019/C 280/30)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Amtsgericht Hamburg

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: GE

         Defendant: Société Air France

         Question referred

      Does a trade union organised strike by the staff of an operating air carrier constitute an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? (1)

         (1)  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 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).


title: Case C-383/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Ostrowie Wielkopolskim (Poland) lodged on 15 May 2019 — Powiat Ostrowski v Ubezpieczeniowy Fundusz Gwarancyjny z siedzibą w Warszawie

text:
               19.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 280/23

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Ostrowie Wielkopolskim (Poland) lodged on 15 May 2019 — Powiat Ostrowski v Ubezpieczeniowy Fundusz Gwarancyjny z siedzibą w Warszawie
      (Case C-383/19)
      (2019/C 280/31)
      Language of the case: Polish

         Referring court

      Sąd Rejonowy w Ostrowie Wielkopolskim

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Powiat Ostrowski

         Defendant: Ubezpieczeniowy Fundusz Gwarancyjny z siedzibą w Warszawie

         Questions referred

                  1)

                  Must Article 3 of Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability, (1) be interpreted as meaning that the obligation to take out civil liability motor insurance extends even to situations in which a local government authority — a district — has acquired, on the basis of a court decision, title to a vehicle which is not capable of being driven, is on private property in the form of a guarded car park not on the public highway, and is to be destroyed in accordance with the wishes of its owner?

                  2)

                  Or must it be interpreted as meaning that, in such circumstances, the local government authority, as the owner of the vehicle, is not obliged to take out insurance, without prejudice to the liability of the fund towards injured third parties?

         (1)  OJ 2009 L 263, p. 11.


title: Case C-391/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 21 May 2019 — ‘Unipack’ AD v Direktor na Teritorialna direktsia ‘Dunavska’ of the Agentsia ‘Mitnitsi’, The Public Prosecutor at the Varhovna administrativna prokuratura of the Republic of Bulgaria

text:
               19.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 280/24

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 21 May 2019 — ‘Unipack’ AD v Direktor na Teritorialna direktsia ‘Dunavska’ of the Agentsia ‘Mitnitsi’, The Public Prosecutor at the Varhovna administrativna prokuratura of the Republic of Bulgaria
      (Case C-391/19)
      (2019/C 280/32)
      Language of the case: Bulgarian

         Referring court

      Varhoven administrativen sad

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant in the appeal on a point of law:‘Unipack’ AD

         Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Direktor na Teritorialna direktsia ‘Dunavska’ of the Agentsia ‘Mitnitsi’, The Public Prosecutor at the Varhovna administrativna prokuratura of the Republic of Bulgaria

         Question referred

      Does it constitute exceptional circumstances within the meaning of Article 172(2) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 (1) of 28 July 2015 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards detailed rules concerning certain provisions of the Union Customs Code, which would provide a basis for the granting of authorisation with retroactive effect pursuant to Article 211(2) of the Union Customs Code for the use of the end-use customs procedure pursuant to Article 254 of the Union Customs Code in relation to an import of products that took place before the date of acceptance of the application for authorisation and after the expiry of the validity of a BTI decision in favour of the holder of the procedure for those products due to an amendment to the Combined Nomenclature, if, in the period (of approximately 10 months) between the expiry of the validity of the BTI decision and the import for which the use of the end-use procedure was requested, several (nine) imports of products were made without the customs authorities having corrected the declared Combined Nomenclature code, and the goods were used for a purpose exempted from the anti-dumping duty?

         (1)  OJ 2015 L 343, p. 1.


title: Case C-406/19 P: Appeal brought on 24 May 2019 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 20 March 2019 in Case T-237/17, Spain v Commission

text:
               19.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 280/25

      Appeal brought on 24 May 2019 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 20 March 2019 in Case T-237/17, Spain v Commission
      (Case C-406/19 P)
      (2019/C 280/33)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Appellant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and J. Aquilina, acting as agents)

         Other party to the proceedings: Kingdom of Spain

         Form of order sought

      The Commission claims that the Court should set aside point 1 of the operative part of the judgment under appeal and dismiss the action at first instance or, alternatively, refer the case back to the General Court.

         Single ground of appeal

      The General Court erred in law in its allocation of the burden of proof in the context of the application of flat-rate corrections pursuant to Article 52(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008. (1)

         (1)  OJ 2013 L 347, p. 549.


title: Case C-439/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Satversmes tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 11 June 2019 — B v Latvijas Republikas Saeima

text:
               19.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 280/25

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Satversmes tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 11 June 2019 — B v Latvijas Republikas Saeima
      (Case C-439/19)
      (2019/C 280/34)
      Language of the case: Latvian

         Referring court

      Satversmes tiesa

         Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: B

         Defendant: Latvijas Republikas Saeima

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Must the expression ‘[p]rocessing of personal data relating to criminal convictions and offences or related security measures’, used in Article 10 of Regulation 2016/679, (1) be interpreted as meaning that it includes the processing of information relating to penalty points recorded against drivers for motoring offences as provided for in the provision at issue?

                  2.

                  Irrespective of the answer to the first question, can the provisions of Regulation 2016/679, in particular the principle of ‘integrity and confidentiality’ referred to in Article 5(1)(f) thereof, be interpreted as meaning that they prohibit Member States from stipulating that information relating to penalty points recorded against drivers for motoring offences falls within the public domain and from allowing such data to be processed by being communicated?

                  3.

                  Must recitals 50 and 154 and Articles 5(1)(b) and 10 of Regulation 2016/679 and Article 1(2)(cc) of Directive 2003/98/EC (2) be interpreted as meaning that they preclude legislation of a Member State which allows information relating to penalty points recorded against drivers for motoring offences to be transmitted for the purposes of re-use?

                  4.

                  If any of the foregoing questions is answered in the affirmative, must the principle of the primacy of EU law and the principle of legal certainty be interpreted as meaning that it might be permissible to apply the provision at issue and maintain its legal effects until such time as the decision ultimately adopted by the Constitutional Court becomes final?

         (1)  Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ 2016 L 119, p. 1).

         (2)  Directive 2003/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 on the re-use of public sector information (OJ 2003 L 345, p. 90).


title: Case C-450/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 13 June 2019 — Kilpailu- ja kuluttajavirasto

text:
               19.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 280/26

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 13 June 2019 — Kilpailu- ja kuluttajavirasto
      (Case C-450/19)
      (2019/C 280/35)
      Language of the case: Finnish

         Referring court

      Korkein hallinto-oikeus

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Kilpailu- ja kuluttajavirasto

         Defendant: Eltel Group Oy ja Eltel Networks Oy

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Can the system of competition established by Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) be interpreted to mean that, in a situation in which a cartel participant has entered into a construction contract as agreed in the cartel with a player outside the cartel, the competition infringement continues, due to the economic effects caused thereby, throughout the whole period in which contractual obligations arising from the contract are discharged or payments for the works are made to the contracting parties, that is to say up until the point at which the last instalment is paid for the works, or at least up until the point at which the works in question are completed;

                  2.

                  or is it to be assumed that the competition infringement continues only until the point at which the company that committed the infringement has submitted a tender for the works concerned or entered into a contract for the execution of the works?


title: Case C-302/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 11 April 2019 — Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale v WS

text:
               26.8.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/13

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 11 April 2019 — Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale v WS
      (Case C-302/19)
      (2019/C 288/17)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Corte suprema di cassazione

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale

         Respondent and cross-appellant: WS

         Question referred

      Should Article 12(1)(e) of Directive 2011/98/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 (1) and the principle of equal treatment for holders of single permits to reside and work and national citizens be interpreted to the effect that they preclude national legislation under which, unlike the provisions laid down for nationals of the Member State, the family members of a worker with a single permit from a third country are excluded when determining the members of the family unit, for the purpose of calculating the family unit allowance, where those family members live in the third country of origin?

         (1)  Directive 2011/98/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on a single application procedure for a single permit for third-country nationals to reside and work in the territory of a Member State and on a common set of rights for third-country workers legally residing in a Member State (OJ 2011 L 343, p. 1).


title: Case T-518/19: Action brought on 22 July 2019 — Sipcam Oxon v Commission

text:
               9.9.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/65

      Action brought on 22 July 2019 — Sipcam Oxon v Commission
      (Case T-518/19)
      (2019/C 305/75)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Sipcam Oxon SpA (Milano, Italy) (represented by: C. Mereu, P. Sellar, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  declare the application admissible and well-founded;

                  —

                  annul the contested Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/677 of 29 April 2019;

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay all the costs and expenses of these proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging that the contested Regulation was adopted further to manifest errors of assessment.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging that the contested Regulation results from a procedure during which the applicant’s rights of defence have not been respected.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging that the contested Regulation was adopted in breach of the principle of legal certainty because of the incorrect application of guidelines.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested Regulation was adopted in breach of the principle of proportionality.

                  5.

                  Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested Regulation wad adopted in breach of the precautionary principle.


title: Case T-574/19: Action brought on 16 August 2019 – Tinnus Enterprises v EUIPO – Mystic Products Import & Export and Koopman International (Fluid distribution equipment)

text:
               7.10.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 337/20

      Action brought on 16 August 2019 – Tinnus Enterprises v EUIPO – Mystic Products Import & Export and Koopman International (Fluid distribution equipment)
      (Case T-574/19)
      (2019/C 337/21)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Tinnus Enterprises LLC (Plano, Texas, United States) (represented by: A. Odle, lawyer and J. St Ville, Barrister)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mystic Products Import & Export, SL (Badalona, Spain), Koopman International BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant before the General Court

         Design at issue: Community design No 1431 829-0001

         Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 June 2019 in Case R 1002/2018-3

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  alter the contested decision to: (i) allow the applicant’s appeal; (ii) dismiss in its entirety the invalidity applicants’ applications ICD 10292 and ICD 10689 to declare the RCD an issue invalid; (iii) order the invalidity applicants to pay the applicant’s costs in front of the Board of Appeal and the Invalidity Division; (iv) alternatively remit to the Invalidity Division to address Article 4(1) CDR.

                  —

                  order the payment the appellant’s fees and costs.

         Plea in law

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 8(1) and of Recital 10 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002.


title: Case C-449/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg (Germany) lodged on 13 June 2019 — WEG Tevesstraße v Finanzamt Villingen-Schwenningen

text:
               14.10.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 348/2

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg (Germany) lodged on 13 June 2019 — WEG Tevesstraße v Finanzamt Villingen-Schwenningen
      (Case C-449/19)
      (2019/C 348/02)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: WEG Tevesstraße

         Defendant: Finanzamt Villingen-Schwenningen

         Question referred

      Are the provisions of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) to be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which the supply of heat by associations of residential property owners to those owners is exempt from value added tax?

         (1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


title: Case C-465/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Straubing (Germany) lodged on 19 June 2019 — B & L Elektrogeräte GmbH v GC

text:
               14.10.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 348/2

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Straubing (Germany) lodged on 19 June 2019 — B & L Elektrogeräte GmbH v GC
      (Case C-465/19)
      (2019/C 348/03)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Amtsgericht Straubing

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: B & L Elektrogeräte GmbH

         Defendant: GC

         Question referred

      Does an off-premises contract within the meaning of Article 2(8)(c) of Directive 2011/83/EU, (1) with the consequence of entailing a right of withdrawal pursuant to Article 9 of the directive, arise if a trader at a trade fair who is in or in front of a sales stand that is deemed to constitute business premises within the meaning of Article 2(9) of the directive solicits a consumer who is standing in the aisle in front of the sales stand in an exhibition hall at a consumer trade fair without communicating with the trader, and the contract is subsequently concluded in the sales stand?

         (1)  Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2011 L 304, p. 64).


title: Case C-471/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Grondwettelijk Hof (Belgium) lodged on 20 June 2019 — Middlegate Europe NV v Ministerraad

text:
               14.10.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 348/3

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Grondwettelijk Hof (Belgium) lodged on 20 June 2019 — Middlegate Europe NV v Ministerraad
      (Case C-471/19)
      (2019/C 348/04)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Referring court

      Grondwettelijk Hof

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: Middlegate Europe NV

         Respondent: Ministerraad

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Should Article 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, whether or not read in conjunction with Article 56 of that Treaty, with Articles 15 and 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and with the principle of equality, be interpreted as precluding national legislative provisions that oblige persons or undertakings which, in a Belgian port area, wish to engage in dock-work activities within the meaning of the wet van 8 juni 1972 betreffende de havenarbeid (Law of 8 June 1972 organising dock work) — including activities which, strictly speaking, are unrelated to the loading and unloading of ships — to have recourse solely to recognised dockers?

                  2.

                  If the first question is answered in the affirmative, may the Grondwettelijk Hof provisionally maintain the effects of Articles 1 and 2 of the wet van 8 juni 1972 betreffende de havenarbeid in order to prevent legal uncertainty and social discontent and to enable the legislature to bring those provisions into line with the obligations arising from EU law?


title: Case C-491/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 26 June 2019 — Emberi Erőforrások Minisztériuma v Szent Borbála Kórház

text:
               14.10.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 348/4

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 26 June 2019 — Emberi Erőforrások Minisztériuma v Szent Borbála Kórház
      (Case C-491/19)
      (2019/C 348/05)
      Language of the case: Hungarian

         Referring court

      Kúria

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: Emberi Erőforrások Minisztériuma

         Respondent: Szent Borbála Kórház

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  In the legal relationship arising from a subsidy agreement, are the authorities and intermediate bodies of the Member States which are competent to conduct irregularity proceedings at first or second tier empowered to examine directly in the course of the proceedings before them, in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (‘the Regulation’), (1) and in particular as part of the control mechanism provided for in Articles 60, 70 and 98 thereof, any infringement that has or may have an impact prejudicial to the financial interests of the budget of the European Union, and are they obliged, if necessary, to apply a financial correction?

                  2.

                  Is the protection of the financial interests of the European Union effectively guaranteed by national procedural legislation, or by the case-law interpreting it, which, in the case of a subsidy agreement, allows a breach of that agreement consisting in an infringement of public procurement legislation (an irregularity) to be established, and any civil claim based on the establishment of that infringement to be asserted, only where a final declaration as to the existence of that infringement has been made by the Arbitration Committee or, following a judicial review of the decision of the Arbitration Committee, by a court?

                  3.

                  If the infringement of public procurement legislation constitutes an irregularity but proceedings have not been instituted before the Arbitration Committee, is the court hearing the civil claims relating to compliance with the subsidy agreement empowered to assess the irregularity in the public procurement process in the course of examining the breach of the agreement?

         (1)  OJ 2006 L 210, p. 25.


title: Case C-507/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 3 July 2019 — Federal Republic of Germany v XT

text:
               14.10.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 348/4

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 3 July 2019 — Federal Republic of Germany v XT
      (Case C-507/19)
      (2019/C 348/06)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Bundesverwaltungsgericht

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

         Applicant: XT

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  When assessing the question of whether, within the meaning of the second sentence of Article 12(1)(a) of Directive 2011/95/EU, (1) a stateless Palestinian is no longer granted protection or assistance of the UNRWA, is account to be taken from a geographical perspective solely of the respective field of operation (Gaza Strip, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, West Bank) in which the stateless person had his actual residence upon leaving the area of operations of the UNRWA (in this case: Syria), or also of further fields of operation belonging to the area of operations of the UNRWA?

                  2.

                  If account is not solely to be taken of the field of operation upon leaving: Is account always to be taken, regardless of further conditions, of all the fields of operation of the area of operations? If not: Are further fields of operation only to be taken into consideration if the stateless person had a substantial (territorial) connection to that field of operation? Is a habitual residence — at the time of or prior to leaving — required for such a connection? Are further circumstances to be taken into consideration when examining a substantial (territorial) connection? If so: Which ones? Does it matter whether it is possible and reasonable for the stateless person to enter the relevant field of operation when leaving the UNRWA area of operations?

                  3.

                  Is a stateless person who leaves the area of operations of the UNRWA because his personal safety is at serious risk in the field of operation of his actual residence, and it is impossible for the UNRWA to grant him protection or assistance there, entitled, within the meaning of the second sentence of Article 12(1)(a) of Directive 2011/95/EU, ipso facto to the benefits of the Directive even if he previously went to that field of operation without his personal safety having been at serious risk in the field of operation of his former residence and without being able to expect, according to the circumstances at the time of the move, to experience protection or assistance by the UNRWA in the field of operation into which he moves and to return to the field of operation of his previous residence in the foreseeable future?

                  4.

                  When assessing the question of whether a stateless person is not to be granted ipso facto refugee status because the conditions of the second sentence of Article 12(1)(a) of Directive 2011/95/EU ceased to apply once he left the area of operations of the UNRWA, is account to be taken solely of the field of operation of the last habitual residence? If not: Is consideration also, by analogy, to be given to the areas of which account is to be taken under No 2 for the time of leaving? If not: Which criteria are to be used to determine the areas which are to be taken into consideration at the time of the ruling on the application? Does the cessation of application of the conditions of the second sentence of Article 12(1)(a) of Directive 2011/95/EU require the (state or quasi-state) bodies in the relevant field of operation to be prepared to (re)admit the stateless person?

                  5.

                  In the event that, in connection with the satisfaction or cessation of application of the conditions of the second sentence of Article 12(1)(a) of Directive 2011/95/EU, the field of operation of the (last) habitual residence is of significance: Which criteria are decisive for establishing habitual residence? Is lawful residence authorised by the country of residence required? If not: Is there at least a need for the conscious acceptance of the residence of the stateless person concerned by the responsible bodies of the field of operation? If so in this respect: Does the presence of the individual stateless person have to be specifically known to the responsible bodies or is the conscious acceptance of residence as a member of a larger group of people sufficient? If not: Is actual residence for a relatively long period of time sufficient in itself?

         (1)  Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted (OJ 2011 L 337, p. 9).


title: Case C-529/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Potsdam (Germany) lodged on 11 July 2019 — Möbel Kraft GmbH & Co. KG v ML

text:
               14.10.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 348/6

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Potsdam (Germany) lodged on 11 July 2019 — Möbel Kraft GmbH & Co. KG v ML
      (Case C-529/19)
      (2019/C 348/07)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Amtsgericht Potsdam

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Möbel Kraft GmbH & Co. KG

         Defendant: ML

         Question referred

      Is the right of withdrawal under Article 16(c) of the Consumer Rights Directive (Directive 2011/83/EU) (1) also excluded where goods are made to the consumer’s specifications but the seller has not yet begun to manufacture the goods and would be making adjustments to them itself at the consumer’s premises, not through a third party? Does the answer depend on whether it would be possible to return the goods to the state they were in before customisation with only low dismantling costs, such as some 5 percent of the value of the goods?

         (1)  Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2011 L 304, p. 64).


title: Case C-540/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 16 July 2019 — WV v Landkreis Harburg

text:
               14.10.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 348/6

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 16 July 2019 — WV v Landkreis Harburg
      (Case C-540/19)
      (2019/C 348/08)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Bundesgerichtshof

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Defendant and appellant: WV

         Applicant and respondent: Landkreis Harburg

         Question referred

      Can a public body which has provided a maintenance creditor with social assistance benefits in accordance with provisions of public law invoke the place of jurisdiction at the place of habitual residence of the maintenance creditor under Article 3(b) of the European Maintenance Regulation (1) in the case where it asserts the maintenance creditor’s maintenance claim under civil law, transferred to it on the basis of the granting of social assistance by way of statutory subrogation, against the maintenance debtor by way of recourse?

         (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations (OJ 2009 L 7, p. 1).


title: Case C-546/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 16 July 2019 — BZ v Westerwaldkreis

text:
               14.10.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 348/7

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 16 July 2019 — BZ v Westerwaldkreis
      (Case C-546/19)
      (2019/C 348/09)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Bundesverwaltungsgericht

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant, appellant and appellant on a point of law: BZ

         Defendant, respondent and respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Westerwaldkreis

         Questions referred

                  1.

                              (a)

                              Does an entry ban issued against a third-country national for purposes ‘not related to migration’ come within the scope of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals, (1) at any rate if the Member State has not made use of the option under Article 2(2)(b) of that directive?

                              (b)

                              If Question 1(a) is answered in the negative: Does such an entry ban not come under Directive 2008/115/EC if the third-country national is already staying illegally regardless of an expulsion order issued against him, to which the entry ban is linked, and therefore in principle comes within the scope of the Directive?

                              (c)

                              Do entry bans issued for purposes ‘not related to migration’ include entry bans issued in connection with an expulsion ordered for reasons of public safety and order (in this case: solely on general preventive grounds with the objective of combating terrorism)?

                  2.

                  If Question 1 is answered to the effect that the present entry ban does come within the scope of Directive 2008/115/EC:

                              (a)

                              Does the administrative annulment of the return decision (in this case: the removal warning) have the result that an entry ban, within the meaning of Article 3.6 of Directive 2008/115/EC, ordered at the same time becomes unlawful?

                              (b)

                              Does this legal consequence arise even if the administrative expulsion order preceding the return decision is or has become final?

         (1)  OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98.


title: Case C-559/19: Action brought on 22 July 2019 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               14.10.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 348/8

      Action brought on 22 July 2019 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
      (Case C-559/19)
      (2019/C 348/10)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Applicant: European Commission (represented by: C. Hermes, E. Manhaeve and E. Sanfrutos Cano, acting as Agents)

         Defendants: Kingdom of Spain

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  declare that, by failing to adopt the necessary measures to prevent the deterioration of the state of the bodies of groundwater in the Doñana region, by failing to carry out an additional characterisation of those which present a risk, without also determining the necessary measures, and by failing to include appropriate basic and complementary measures in the programme of measures for the River Basin Management Plan for the Guadalquivir River Basin District, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 1(a) and point 2.1.2 of Annex V; Article 5 read in conjunction with point 2.2 of Annex II; and Article 11(1)(3)(a), (c) and (e) and (4) 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);

                  —

                  declare that, by failing to adopt appropriate measures to prevent deterioration of the natural habitats and of the habitats of the species which led to the designation of the areas considered here (SPA/SCI ES0000024 Doñana, SPA/SCI ES6150009 Doñana North and West and SPA ES6150012 Dehesa del Estero and Montes de Moguer), the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(2) read in conjunction with Article 7 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (2);

                  —

                  order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

                  1)

                  Failure to fulfil obligations under Article 4(1)(b) of Directive 2000/60/EC, read in conjunction with Article 1(a) and point 2.1.2 of Annex V to that directive
                  Article 4(1)(b) of Directive 2000/60/EC requires Member States prevent the deterioration of the status of all bodies of groundwater? It must be read in conjunction with Article 1(a) of the directive, which specifies the environmental objectives to be achieved by Member States with regard to groundwater, and point 2.1.2. of Annex V thereto, which defines the good quantitative status of groundwater. The Commission considers that the Kingdom of Spain has not taken the necessary measures to prevent deterioration due to overexploitation of the bodies of groundwater in the region of Doñana. The Commission therefore concludes that the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1)(b) of Directive 2000/60/EC, read in conjunction with Article 1(a) and point 2.1.2 of Annex V thereto.

                  2)

                  Failure to fulfil obligations under Article 5 of Directive 2000/60/EC, read in conjunction with point 2.2 of Annex II to that directive.
                  Article 5 of Directive 2000/60/EC sets out the procedure to be followed for the river basin district, imposing in each case an analysis of the characteristics of the district, a study of the impact of human activity on the status of surface water and groundwater, and an economic analysis of water use. Where, following the initial analysis of the characteristics, a body of groundwater is identified as posing a risk, Member States are required, pursuant to point 2.2 of Annex II to the Directive, to carry out an additional characterisation. The Commission considers that the Kingdom of Spain has not correctly applied Article 5(1) of Directive 2000/60/EC, read in conjunction with point 2.2 of Annex II to that Directive, in so far as it has not carried out an additional characterisation of the groundwater bodies in the district of Doñana which exposed to a risk, without determining the necessary measures either. The Commission therefore concludes that the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5 of Directive 2000/60/EC, read in conjunction with point 2.2 of Annex II to that directive.

                  3)

                  Infringement of Article 11(1)(3)(a), (c) and (e) and (4) of Directive 2000/60/EC.
                  Under Article 11(1) of Directive 2000/60/EC, Member States ‘shall ensure the establishment for each river basin district, or for the part of an international river basin district within its territory, of a programme of measures, taking account of the results of the analyses required under Article 5, in order to achieve the objectives established under Article 4’. Article 11(3)(a), (c) and (e) sets out some of the basic measures to be included in that programme of measures. Article 11(4) of that provision refers to accompanying measures, which are those designed and implemented in addition to the basic measures. The Commission submits that the Kingdom of Spain failed to include in the River Basin Management Plan for the Guadalquivir River Basin District the appropriate basic and complementary measures and that the Kingdom of Spain has therefore failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11(1), (3)(a), (c) and (e), and (4) of Directive 2000/60/EC.

                  4)

                  Infringement of Article 6(2) read in conjunction with Article 7 of Directive 92/43/EEC.
                  Article 6(2) of Directive 92/43/EEC lays down, on the basis of the principle of prevention, a general duty of protection which requires that habitats and species for which an area has been designated must be protected from any deterioration or disturbance likely to have a significant effect contrary to the objectives of the directive. Under Article 7 of that directive, that duty of protection extends to areas classified as Special Protection Areas for birds (SPAs) under Council Directive 79/409/EEC [of 2 April 1979] on the conservation of wild birds (3). The Commission considers that, by failing to take appropriate measures to prevent deterioration of the natural habitats and habitats of the species which led to the designation of the areas SPA/SCI ES0000024 Doñana, SPA/SCI ES6150009 Doñana North and West and SPA ES6150012 Dehesa del Estero and Montes de Moguer, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(2), read in conjunction with Article 7, of Directive 92/43/EEC.

         (1)  OJ 2000, L 327, p. 1

         (2)  OJ 1992, L 206, p. 7

         (3)  OJ 1979, L 103, p. 1.


title: Case C-609/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’instance de Lagny-sur-Marne (France) lodged on 13 August 2019 — BNP Paribas Personal Finance SA v VE

text:
               14.10.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 348/12

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’instance de Lagny-sur-Marne (France) lodged on 13 August 2019 — BNP Paribas Personal Finance SA v VE
      (Case C-609/19)
      (2019/C 348/13)
      Language of the case: French

         Referring court

      Tribunal d’instance de Lagny-sur-Marne (France)

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: BNP Paribas Personal Finance SA

         Defendant: VE

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Must Article 4(2) of Directive 93/13 (1) be interpreted as meaning that terms stipulating repayments at fixed intervals allocated first to interest and providing for an extension of the term of the contract and for an increase in payments in order to pay the account balance, which [may] increase significantly as a result of exchange rate variations, constitute the main subject matter of a loan denominated in a foreign currency and repayable in the national currency, and that those terms cannot be considered in isolation?

                  2.

                  Must Article 3(1) of Directive 93/13 be interpreted as meaning that terms stipulating payments at fixed intervals allocated first to interest and providing for an extension of [the] term [of the contract] and for an increase in payments in order to pay the account balance, which may increase significantly as a result of exchange rate variations, cause a significant imbalance in the rights and obligations of the parties to the contract, in particular in that they expose the consumer to a disproportionate foreign exchange risk?

                  3.

                  Must Article 4 of Directive 93/13 be interpreted as requiring that the plainness and intelligibility of the terms of a loan agreement denominated in a foreign currency and repayable in the national currency be assessed by referring, at the time of conclusion of that agreement, to the foreseeable economic context, in the present case the consequences of the economic difficulties of the years 2007 to 2009 on exchange rate variations, taking into account the professional lender’s expertise and knowledge, as well as its good faith?

                  4.

                  Must Article 4 of Directive 93/13 be interpreted as requiring that the plainness and intelligibility of the terms of a loan agreement denominated in a foreign currency and repayable in the national currency be assessed by ascertaining that a lender, having [the] expertise and knowledge of a seller or supplier, has communicated to the consumer only objective and abstract information, inter alia quantitative information, which does not take into account the economic context capable of affecting exchange rate variations?

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