title: Joined Cases C-325/18 PPU and C-375/18 PPU: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 September 2018 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal — Ireland) — Hampshire County Council v C.E., N.E. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and in matters of parental responsibility — International child abduction — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Article 11 — Application for return — Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 — Application for a declaration of enforceability — Appeal — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 47 — Right to an effective remedy — Time limit for bringing the appeal — Order authorising enforcement — Enforcement prior to service of the order)

text:
               12.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 408/32

      Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 September 2018 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal — Ireland) — Hampshire County Council v C.E., N.E.
      (Joined Cases C-325/18 PPU and C-375/18 PPU) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and in matters of parental responsibility - International child abduction - Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 - Article 11 - Application for return - Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 - Application for a declaration of enforceability - Appeal - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 47 - Right to an effective remedy - Time limit for bringing the appeal - Order authorising enforcement - Enforcement prior to service of the order))
      (2018/C 408/42)
      Language of the case: English

         Referring court

      Court of Appeal

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Hampshire County Council

         Defendants: C.E., N.E.

         other parties: Child and Family Agency, Attorney General

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  The general provisions of Chapter III of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, must be interpreted as meaning that, where it is alleged that children have been wrongfully removed, the decision of a court of the Member State in which those children were habitually resident, directing that those children be returned and which is entailed by a decision dealing with parental responsibility, may be declared enforceable in the host Member State in accordance with those general provisions.

                  2.

                  Article 33(1) of Regulation No 2201/2003, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as precluding, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, enforcement of a decision of a court of a Member State which directs that children be made wards of court and that they be returned and which is declared enforceable in the requested Member State, prior to service of the declaration of enforceability of that decision on the parents concerned. Article 33(5) of Regulation No 2201/2003 must be interpreted as meaning that the period for lodging an appeal laid down in that provision may not be extended by the court seised.

                  3.

                  Regulation No 2201/2003 must be interpreted as not precluding, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, a court of one Member State from adopting protective measures in the form of an injunction directed at a public body of another Member State, preventing that body from commencing or continuing, before the courts of that other Member State, proceedings for the adoption of children who are residing there.

         (1)  OJ C 249, 16.7.2018.

         OJ C 268, 30.7.2018.


title: Case T-260/16: Judgment of the General Court of 25 September 2018 — Sweden v Commission (EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Decoupled direct aids — On-the-spot checks — Remote sensing — Assessment of risk factors — Corrective action to be taken by the Member State concerned — Assessment of the financial loss — Proportionality)

text:
               12.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 408/47

      Judgment of the General Court of 25 September 2018 — Sweden v Commission
      (Case T-260/16) (1)

      ((EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Decoupled direct aids - On-the-spot checks - Remote sensing - Assessment of risk factors - Corrective action to be taken by the Member State concerned - Assessment of the financial loss - Proportionality))
      (2018/C 408/59)
      Language of the case: Swedish

         Parties

         Applicant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: initially, L. Swedenborg, A. Falk, N. Otte Widgren, C. Meyer-Seitz and U. Persson, and subsequently L. Swedenborg, A. Falk and C. Meyer-Seitz, acting as Agents)

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

         Intervener in support of the applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek and J. Vláčil, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking, primarily, annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/417 of 17 Μarch 2016 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2016 L 75, p. 16), in so far as it concerns decoupled direct aids paid to the Kingdom of Sweden totalling EUR 8 811 286,44 for the claim year 2013 and, in the alternative, the reduction of the amount of those decoupled direct aids excluded from financing in the amount of EUR 1 022 259,46.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/417 of 17 Μarch 2016 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in so far as it concerns decoupled direct aids paid to the Kingdom of Sweden totalling EUR 8 811 286,44 for the claim year 2013;

                  2.

                  Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Kingdom of Sweden;

                  3.

                  Orders the Czech Republic to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 305, 22.8.2016.


title: Case T-570/18: Action brought on 25 September 2018 — YQ v Commission

text:
               12.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 408/60

      Action brought on 25 September 2018 — YQ v Commission
      (Case T-570/18)
      (2018/C 408/77)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: YQ (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  declare and adjudge that the individual decision no longer to grant the applicant the reimbursement of the school fees in connection with her child as of the 2017/2018 school year, processed on 15 November 2017 and reflected for the first time in her pay slip for December 2017, is annulled;

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 3(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and of general implementing provisions on the reimbursement of medical fees, in so far as the defendant’s amended interpretation infringed acquired rights, legitimate expectations, legal certainty and the principle of good administration.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the child, the right to family life and the right to education.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging the failure properly to balance the applicant’s interests and to comply with the principle of proportionality, which failures vitiate the contested decision.


title: Case T-123/17: Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2018 — Exaa Abwicklungsstelle für Energieprodukte v ACER (Energy — Decision of the Board of Appeal of ACER — Rejection of the application to intervene — Direct and existing interest at the end of the procedure — Obligation to state reasons — Right to be heard)

text:
               12.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 408/48

      Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2018 — Exaa Abwicklungsstelle für Energieprodukte v ACER
      (Case T-123/17) (1)

      ((Energy - Decision of the Board of Appeal of ACER - Rejection of the application to intervene - Direct and existing interest at the end of the procedure - Obligation to state reasons - Right to be heard))
      (2018/C 408/61)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Exaa Abwicklungsstelle für Energieprodukte AG (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: B. Rajal, lawyer)

         Defendant: Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (represented by: P. Martinet and E. Tremmel, acting as Agents)

         Intervener in support of the defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

         Re:

      Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the Board of Appeal of ACER of 17 February 2017 rejecting the applicant’s application to intervene in Case A-001-2017 (consolidated).

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Exaa Abwicklungsstelle für Energieprodukte AG to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER), including those relating to the interlocutory proceedings;

                  3.

                  Orders the Republic of Poland to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 129, 24.4.2017.


title: Case C-23/18 P: Appeal brought on 10 January 2018 by Ccc Event Management GmbH against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) made on 7 November 2017 in Case T-363/17, Ccc Event Management GmbH v Court of Justice of the European Union

text:
               12.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 408/35

      Appeal brought on 10 January 2018 by Ccc Event Management GmbH against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) made on 7 November 2017 in Case T-363/17, Ccc Event Management GmbH v Court of Justice of the European Union

      (Case C-23/18 P)
      (2018/C 408/46)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Appellant: Ccc Event Management GmbH (represented by: A. Schuster, Rechtsanwalt)

         Other party to the proceedings: Court of Justice of the European Union
      By order of 13 September 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Tenth Chamber) dismissed the appeal as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.


title: Case C-594/16: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Enzo Buccioni v Banca d’Italia (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Directive 2013/36/EU — Article 53(1) — Obligation of professional secrecy on national authorities charged with prudential supervision of credit institutions — Credit institution which is being compulsorily wound up — Disclosure of confidential information in civil or commercial proceedings)

text:
               12.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 408/8

      Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Enzo Buccioni v Banca d’Italia
      (Case C-594/16) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Directive 2013/36/EU - Article 53(1) - Obligation of professional secrecy on national authorities charged with prudential supervision of credit institutions - Credit institution which is being compulsorily wound up - Disclosure of confidential information in civil or commercial proceedings))
      (2018/C 408/07)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Consiglio di Stato

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Enzo Buccioni

         Defendant: Banca d’Italia

         Intervener: Banca Network Investimenti SpA, in liquidation

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 53(1) of Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on access to the activity of credit institutions and the prudential supervision of credit institutions and investment firms, amending Directive 2002/87/EC and repealing Directives 2006/48/EC and 2006/49/EC, must be interpreted as not precluding the competent authorities of the Member States from disclosing confidential information to a person who so requests in order to be able to institute civil or commercial proceedings with a view to protecting proprietary interests which were prejudiced as a result of the compulsory liquidation of a credit institution. However, the request for disclosure must relate to information in respect of which the applicant puts forward precise and consistent evidence plausibly suggesting that it is relevant for the purposes of civil or commercial proceedings, the subject matter of which must be specifically identified by the applicant and without which the information in question cannot be used. It is for the competent authorities and courts to weigh up the interest of the applicant in having the information in question and the interests connected with maintaining the confidentiality of the information covered by the obligation of professional secrecy, before disclosing each piece of confidential information requested.

         (1)  OJ C 63, 27.2.2017.


title: Case C-26/17 P: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 13 September 2018 — Birkenstock Sales GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (Appeal — EU trade mark — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark representing a pattern of wavy, crisscrossing lines — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 7(1)(b) — Absolute ground for refusal — Distinctive character — Surface pattern)

text:
               12.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 408/10

      Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 13 September 2018 — Birkenstock Sales GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
      (Case C-26/17 P) (1)

      ((Appeal - EU trade mark - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark representing a pattern of wavy, crisscrossing lines - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 7(1)(b) - Absolute ground for refusal - Distinctive character - Surface pattern))
      (2018/C 408/10)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Appellant: Birkenstock Sales GmbH (represented by: C. Menebröcker and V. Töbelmann, Rechtsanwälte)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the appeal;

                  2.

                  Orders Birkenstock Sales GmbH to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 151, 15.5.2017.


title: Case T-530/18: Action brought on 7 September 2018 — Romania v Commission

text:
               12.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 408/56

      Action brought on 7 September 2018 — Romania v Commission
      (Case T-530/18)
      (2018/C 408/73)
      Language of the case: Romanian

         Parties

         Applicant: Romania (represented by: C. Canţăr, E. Gane, C. Florescu and O. Ichim, acting as Agents)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul in part Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/873 of 13 June 2018 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) in so far as it concerns (a) sub-measure 1a in its entirety (the sum of EUR 13 184 846,61 for the years 2015 and 2016) and (b) sub-measures 3a, 5a, 3b and 4b in their entirety (the sum of EUR 45 532 000,96 for the years 2014, 2015 and 2016) or, in the alternative, in part, in respect of the period prior to 19 September 2015 (the sum of EUR 21 315 857,50);

                  —

                  order the European Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging a misuse by the European Commission of its powers to exclude sums from European Union financing

                              —

                              By applying the corrections established by Decision 2018/873, the Commission misused its powers, thereby infringing Article 52 of Regulation No 1306/2013 and the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty.

                              —

                              The contested decision infringes Article 52 of Regulation No 1306/2013 in so far as the Commission, following discussions held with the Romanian authorities, decided to approve the revision of National Rural Development Programme (NRDP) 2007-2013, expressing its consent with regard to the measures set out in that NRDP, including the methodologies relating to payments concerning sub-measures 1a, 3a, 5a, 3b and 4b in the context of measure 215 — Animal welfare payments. The decision approving the revision of the NRDP is a legal commitment and entails making payments from the EU budget.

                              —

                              The Romanian authorities made payments in accordance with the approval given by the Commission. Against that background, the decision to apply the corrections is unlawful.

                              —

                              Romania considers that the contested decision infringes the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, in so far as the Commission’s decision to approve the revision of the NRDP gave rise to a legitimate expectation on the part of the Romanian authorities and the beneficiaries with regard to the regularity of the methods of calculation approved by the Commission. That principle requires that, with regard to sub-measures 3a, 5a, 3b and 4b, the Commission apply the corrections as from 19 September 2015, as it did with regard to the corrections concerning sub-measure 1a.

                              —

                              Similarly, Romania considers that that EU institution should also have observed that principle with regard to the payments made after 19 September 2015, given that, at that point, further revision of the NRDP was no longer possible.

                              —

                              Romania considers that the contested decision infringes the principle of legal certainty as a result of the Commission taking a different position with regard to the regularity of the methods of calculation used. Thus, by the contested decision, the Commission found that the payments made according to the methods of calculation which it had previously approved were irregular. Moreover, although the Romanian authorities requested clarification from that EU institution with regard to the possibility of correcting errors regarding compensatory payments, given that the NRDP could not be revised after 19 September 2015, the Commission did not set out its position with regard to that issue.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging a failure to fulfil the obligation to state reasons as laid down in the second paragraph of Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

                              —

                              Romania considers that the Commission failed to fulfil its obligation to state reasons as laid down in the second paragraph of Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in so far as, in the case of sub-measure 1a, that EU institution did not provide sufficient and appropriate reasons for: (i) its changing position as regards the irregularities found and the type of correction applied; (ii) its rejection of the arguments and explanations put forward by the Romanian authorities as regards the alleged overcompensation; and (iii) its choice to apply a flat rate in respect of the irregularities found, instead of a calculated rate.


title: Case C-137/17: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Van Gennip BVBA, Antonius Johannes Maria ten Velde, Original BVBA, Antonius Cornelius Ignatius Maria van der Schoot (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directives 2006/123/EC, 2007/23/EC and 2013/29/EU — Placing on the market of pyrotechnic articles — Free movement of pyrotechnic articles compliant with the requirements of those directives — National legislation laying down restrictions on the storage and sale of those articles — Criminal penalties — Twofold authorisation scheme — Directive 98/34/EC — Concept of ‘technical regulation’)

text:
               12.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 408/17

      Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Van Gennip BVBA, Antonius Johannes Maria ten Velde, Original BVBA, Antonius Cornelius Ignatius Maria van der Schoot
      (Case C-137/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directives 2006/123/EC, 2007/23/EC and 2013/29/EU - Placing on the market of pyrotechnic articles - Free movement of pyrotechnic articles compliant with the requirements of those directives - National legislation laying down restrictions on the storage and sale of those articles - Criminal penalties - Twofold authorisation scheme - Directive 98/34/EC - Concept of ‘technical regulation’))
      (2018/C 408/20)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Referring court

      Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen

         Parties to the main proceedings

      Van Gennip BVBA, Antonius Johannes Maria ten Velde, Original BVBA, Antonius Cornelius Ignatius Maria van der Schoot

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  The principle of free movement of pyrotechnic articles, as provided for, inter alia, in Article 6(2) of Directive 2007/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 May 2007 on the placing on the market of pyrotechnic articles, does not preclude national legislation which restricts the possession or use by consumers and the sale to consumers of fireworks of which the pyrotechnic composition exceeds 1 kg, to the extent that such legislation is appropriate to guarantee public order and security and does not go beyond what is necessary to protect those fundamental interests, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.

                  2.

                  Article 10 of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude national legislation which makes the storage of pyrotechnic articles compliant with Directive 2007/23 and intended for the retail trade subject to dual authorisation, namely a federal authorisation and a regional environmental permit, provided that all the conditions set out in Article 10(2) of that directive are satisfied, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.

                  3.

                  Article 20 of Directive 2007/23 and Article 1(5) of Directive 2006/123 must be interpreted as meaning that Member States can adopt criminal law penalties provided that, as regards Directive 2007/23, those penalties are effective, proportionate and dissuasive and, as regards Directive 2006/123, the national rules of criminal law do not have the effect of circumventing the rules contained in that directive.

         (1)  OJ C 178, 6.6.2017.


title: Case C-173/17 P: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 13 September 2018 — ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias v European Commission (Appeal — Arbitration clauses — Doc@Hand Agreement concluded under the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration 2007-2013 — Eligible costs — European Commission decision — Obligation to reimburse sums paid — Counter-claim)

text:
               12.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 408/19

      Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 13 September 2018 — ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias v European Commission
      (Case C-173/17 P) (1)

      ((Appeal - Arbitration clauses - Doc@Hand Agreement concluded under the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration 2007-2013 - Eligible costs - European Commission decision - Obligation to reimburse sums paid - Counter-claim))
      (2018/C 408/22)
      Language of the case: Greek

         Parties

         Appellant: ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias (represented by: S. Paliou, dikigoros)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and A. Kyratsou, acting as Agents)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the appeal;

                  2.

                  Orders ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 168, 29.5.2017.


title: Case T-384/17: Judgment of the General Court of 25 September 2018 — Cyprus v EUIPO — M. J. Dairies (BBQLOUMI) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark BBQLOUMI — Prior United Kingdom word certification mark HALLOUMI — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Rejection of the opposition — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

text:
               12.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 408/53

      Judgment of the General Court of 25 September 2018 — Cyprus v EUIPO — M. J. Dairies (BBQLOUMI)
      (Case T-384/17) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark BBQLOUMI - Prior United Kingdom word certification mark HALLOUMI - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Rejection of the opposition - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
      (2018/C 408/68)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Republic of Cyprus (represented by: S. Malynicz, QC, V. Marsland, Solicitor, and S. Baran, Barrister)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: M. J. Dairies EOOD (Sofia, Bulgaria)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 April 2017 (Case R 496/2016-4), concerning opposition proceedings between the Republic of Cyprus and M. J. Dairies.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders the Republic of Cyprus to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 269, 14.8.2017.


title: Case C-510/16: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Carrefour Hypermarchés SAS and Others v Ministre des Finances et des Comptes publics (Reference for a preliminary ruling — State aid — Article 108(3) TFEU — Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 — Notified aid schemes — Article 4 — Alteration to existing aid — Significant increase in revenue from taxes allocated to financing of aid schemes in comparison with the projections notified to the European Commission — 20 % threshold of the original budget)

text:
               12.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 408/7

      Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Carrefour Hypermarchés SAS and Others v Ministre des Finances et des Comptes publics
      (Case C-510/16) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - State aid - Article 108(3) TFEU - Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 - Notified aid schemes - Article 4 - Alteration to existing aid - Significant increase in revenue from taxes allocated to financing of aid schemes in comparison with the projections notified to the European Commission - 20 % threshold of the original budget))
      (2018/C 408/05)
      Language of the case: French

         Referring court

      Conseil d’État

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: Carrefour Hypermarchés SAS, Fnac Paris, Fnac Direct, Relais Fnac, Codirep, FNAC Périphérie

         Defendant: Ministre des Finances et des Comptes publics

         Operative part of the judgment

      An increase in the revenue from taxes financing several authorised aid schemes in comparison with the projections notified to the European Commission, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, constitutes an alteration to existing aid, within the meaning of Article 1(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article [108 TFEU] and of the first sentence of Article 4(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 of 21 April 2004 implementing Council Regulation No 659/1999, read in the light of Article 108(3) TFEU, unless that increase remains below the 20 % threshold laid down in the second sentence of Article 4(1) of that latter regulation.
      That threshold must be assessed, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in relation to the revenue assigned to the aid schemes concerned and not in relation to the aid actually allocated.

         (1)  OJ C 462, 12.12.2016.


title: Case C-601/17: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 12 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Dirk Harms and Others v Vueling Airlines SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Air transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Article 8(1) — Reimbursement of the price of a ticket in the event of cancellation of a flight — Commission collected by a person acting as an intermediary between the passenger and the air carrier when the ticket was bought — Included)

text:
               12.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 408/31

      Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 12 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Dirk Harms and Others v Vueling Airlines SA
      (Case C-601/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Article 8(1) - Reimbursement of the price of a ticket in the event of cancellation of a flight - Commission collected by a person acting as an intermediary between the passenger and the air carrier when the ticket was bought - Included))
      (2018/C 408/40)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Amtsgericht Hamburg

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: Dirk Harms, Ann-Kathrin Harms, Nick-Julius Harms, Tom-Lukas Harms, Lilly-Karlotta Harms, Emma-Matilda Harms

         Defendant: Vueling Airlines SA

         Operative part of the judgment

      Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, and in particular Article 8(1)(a) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that the price of the ticket to be taken into consideration for the purposes of determining the reimbursement owed by the air carrier to a passenger in the event of cancellation of a flight includes the difference between the amount paid by that passenger and the amount received by the air carrier, which corresponds to a commission collected by a person acting as an intermediary between those two parties, unless that commission was set without the knowledge of the air carrier, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.

         (1)  OJ C 22, 22.1.2018.


title: Case C-287/17: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 13 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresní soud v Českých Budějovicích — Czech Republic) — Česká pojišťovna a.s. v WCZ, spol. s r.o. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Company law — Combating late payments in commercial transactions — Directive 2011/7/EU — Article 6(1) and (3) — Reimbursement of debt recovery costs — Costs resulting from reminders sent on account of late payment by a debtor)

text:
               12.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 408/22

      Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 13 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresní soud v Českých Budějovicích — Czech Republic) — Česká pojišťovna a.s. v WCZ, spol. s r.o.
      (Case C-287/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Company law - Combating late payments in commercial transactions - Directive 2011/7/EU - Article 6(1) and (3) - Reimbursement of debt recovery costs - Costs resulting from reminders sent on account of late payment by a debtor))
      (2018/C 408/27)
      Language of the case: Czech

         Referring court

      Okresní soud v Českých Budějovicích

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Česká pojišťovna a.s.

         Defendant: WCZ, spol. s r.o.

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 6 of Directive 2011/7/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on combating late payment in commercial transactions must be interpreted as recognising that a creditor claiming compensation for the costs associated with sending reminders to a debtor due to the latter’s late payment is entitled to obtain reasonable compensation, on that basis and in addition to the fixed amount of EUR 40 laid down in Article 6(1) of that directive, for the purposes of Article 6(3) thereof, in respect of the part of those costs which exceeds that fixed amount.

         (1)  OJ C 269, 14.8.2017.


title: Case C-310/18 PPU: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad — Bulgaria) — criminal proceedings against Еmil Milev (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Directive (EU) 2016/343 — Presumption of innocence — Public references to guilt — Remedies — Procedure for reviewing the lawfulness of pre-trial detention)

text:
               12.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 408/32

      Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad — Bulgaria) — criminal proceedings against Еmil Milev
      (Case C-310/18 PPU) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Directive (EU) 2016/343 - Presumption of innocence - Public references to guilt - Remedies - Procedure for reviewing the lawfulness of pre-trial detention))
      (2018/C 408/41)
      Language of the case: Bulgarian

         Referring court

      Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

         Party to the main proceedings

      Еmil Milev

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 3 and Article 4(1) of Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings must be interpreted as not precluding the adoption of preliminary decisions of a procedural nature, such as a decision taken by a judicial authority that pre-trial detention should continue, which are based on suspicion or on incriminating evidence, provided that such decisions do not refer to the person in custody as being guilty. However, that directive does not govern the circumstances in which decisions on pre-trial detention may be adopted.

         (1)  OJ C 268, 30.7.2018.


title: Case C-332/17: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus — Estonia) — Starman AS v Tarbijakaitseamet (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 2011/83/EU — Article 21 — Consumer contracts — Telephone communications — Practice of a telecommunication services provider consisting in offering its customers who have already concluded a contract a speed dial number at a rate higher than the basic rate)

text:
               12.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 408/24

      Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus — Estonia) — Starman AS v Tarbijakaitseamet
      (Case C-332/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 2011/83/EU - Article 21 - Consumer contracts - Telephone communications - Practice of a telecommunication services provider consisting in offering its customers who have already concluded a contract a speed dial number at a rate higher than the basic rate))
      (2018/C 408/30)
      Language of the case: Estonian

         Referring court

      Riigikohus

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Starman AS

         Defendant: Tarbijakaitseamet

         Operative part of the judgment

      The first subparagraph of Article 21 of Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council must be interpreted as precluding a situation in which, if a trader has made available to all its customers one or more speed dial numbers at a rate higher than the basic rate, consumers who have concluded a contract with the trader in question pay more than the basic rate when contacting that trader by telephone in relation to that contract.

         (1)  OJ C 256, 7.8.2017.


title: Case T-668/17: Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2018 — Maico Holding v EUIPO — Eico (Eico) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark Eico — Earlier EU word mark MAICO — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

text:
               12.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 408/55

      Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2018 — Maico Holding v EUIPO — Eico (Eico)
      (Case T-668/17) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark Eico - Earlier EU word mark MAICO - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
      (2018/C 408/71)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Maico Holding GmbH (Villingen-Schwenningen, Germany) (represented by: T. Krüger and D. Deckers, lawyers)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Eico A/S (Brønderslev, Denmark) (represented by: A. Skov, lawyer)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 July 2017 (Case R 2089/2016-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Maico Holding and Eico.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Maico Holding GmbH to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 382, 13.11.2017.


title: Joined Cases C-54/17 and C-55/17: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 September 2018 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato v Wind Tre SpA, formerly Wind Telecomunicazioni SpA (C-54/17), Vodafone Italia SpA, formerly Vodafone Omnitel NV (C-55/17) (References for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 2005/29/EC — Unfair commercial practices — Article 3(4) — Scope — Articles 5, 8 and 9 — Aggressive commercial practices — Annexe I, point 29 — Commercial practices which are aggressive in all circumstances — Inertia selling — Directive 2002/21/EC — Directive 2002/22/EC — Telecommunication services — Sale of SIM (Subscriber Identity Module) cards containing certain pre-installed and pre-activated services — Failure to give prior information to consumers)

text:
               12.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 408/12

      Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 September 2018 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato v Wind Tre SpA, formerly Wind Telecomunicazioni SpA (C-54/17), Vodafone Italia SpA, formerly Vodafone Omnitel NV (C-55/17)
      (Joined Cases C-54/17 and C-55/17) (1)

      ((References for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 2005/29/EC - Unfair commercial practices - Article 3(4) - Scope - Articles 5, 8 and 9 - Aggressive commercial practices - Annexe I, point 29 - Commercial practices which are aggressive in all circumstances - Inertia selling - Directive 2002/21/EC - Directive 2002/22/EC - Telecommunication services - Sale of SIM (Subscriber Identity Module) cards containing certain pre-installed and pre-activated services - Failure to give prior information to consumers))
      (2018/C 408/13)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Consiglio di Stato

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato

         Respondents: Wind Tre SpA, formerly Wind Telecomunicazioni SpA (C-54/17), Vodafone Italia SpA, formerly Vodafone Omnitel NV (C-55/17)

         Interveners: Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Communicazioni (C-54/17), Altroconsumo, Vito Rizzo (C-54/17), Telecom Italia SpA

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  The concept of ‘inertia selling’ within the meaning of Annex I, point 29 of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Unfair Commercial Practices Directive) must be interpreted as including, subject to verifications by the referring court, conduct, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, whereby a telecommunications operator sells SIM (Subscriber Identity Module) cards on which services such as internet browsing services and voicemail services are pre-loaded and pre-activated without first sufficiently informing the consumer of that pre-loading and pre-activation, nor the cost of those services.

                  2.

                  Article 3(4) of Directive 2005/29 must be interpreted as not precluding national rules under which conduct constituting inertia selling, within the meaning of Annex I, point 29 of Directive 2005/29, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, must be assessed in the light of the provisions of that directive, with the result that, according to that legislation, the ARN, within the meaning 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, is not competent to penalise such conduct.

         (1)  OJ C 239, 24.7.2017.


title: Case T-10/16: Judgment of the General Court of 25 September 2018 — GABO:mi v Commission (Arbitration clause — Sixth and seventh framework programmes for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2002-2006 and 2007-2013) — Letters requesting reimbursement of part of the grants awarded — Debit note — Setting off of claims — Amendment of application — Admissibility — Eligibility of expenses — Funds held in trust — Duty to record costs in contractor’s accounts — Compliance with accounting rules in the State in which the contractor is established — Legal certainty — Legitimate expectations — Good governance — Transparency — Right to be heard — Proportionality)

text:
               12.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 408/46

      Judgment of the General Court of 25 September 2018 — GABO:mi v Commission
      (Case T-10/16) (1)

      ((Arbitration clause - Sixth and seventh framework programmes for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2002-2006 and 2007-2013) - Letters requesting reimbursement of part of the grants awarded - Debit note - Setting off of claims - Amendment of application - Admissibility - Eligibility of expenses - Funds held in trust - Duty to record costs in contractor’s accounts - Compliance with accounting rules in the State in which the contractor is established - Legal certainty - Legitimate expectations - Good governance - Transparency - Right to be heard - Proportionality))
      (2018/C 408/58)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: GABO:mi Gesellschaft für Ablauforganisation:milliarium mbH & Co. KG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: M. Ahlhaus and C. Mayer, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: S. Delaude, S. Lejeune and M. Siekierzyńska, subsequently by S. Delaude and M. Siekierzyńska, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application, first, under Article 272 TFEU for a declaration that a claim mentioned in two information letters dated 2 December 2015 and in a debit note dated 2 December 2015 relating to a claim of EUR 1 770 417,29 does not exist and, second, under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of set-off decisions contained in seven letters dated 16 and 21 December 2015, 14 January, 26 April and 3 May 2016 seeking to offset each payment concerned against the applicant’s alleged debt and of that debit note and those information letters.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Declares unfounded the claim of the European Commission against GABO:mi Gesellschaft für Ablauforganisation:milliarium mbH & Co. KG mentioned in debit note No 3241514917 dated 2 December 2015 and in the two information letters dated 2 December 2015 so far as concerns the declared expenses relating to the ‘central travel/meeting budget’ and the liquidated damages relating to it;

                  2.

                  Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

                  3.

                  Orders each party to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 111, 29.3.2016.


title: Case C-69/17: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti — Romania) — Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy România SRL, formerly Gamesa Wind România SRL v Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcţia Generală de Soluţionare a Contestaţiilor, Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcţia Generală de Administrare a Marilor Contribuabili (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Right of deduction — Acquisitions made by a taxpayer declared ‘inactive’ by the tax authorities — Refusal of the right of deduction — Principles of proportionality and neutrality of VAT)

text:
               12.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 408/14

      Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti — Romania) — Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy România SRL, formerly Gamesa Wind România SRL v Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcţia Generală de Soluţionare a Contestaţiilor, Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcţia Generală de Administrare a Marilor Contribuabili
      (Case C-69/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Right of deduction - Acquisitions made by a taxpayer declared ‘inactive’ by the tax authorities - Refusal of the right of deduction - Principles of proportionality and neutrality of VAT))
      (2018/C 408/15)
      Language of the case: Romanian

         Referring court

      Curtea de Apel Bucureşti

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy România SRL, formerly Gamesa Wind România SRL

         Respondents: Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcţia Generală de Soluţionare a Contestaţiilor, Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcţia Generală de Administrare a Marilor Contribuabili

         Operative part of the judgment

      Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2010/45/EU of 13 July 2010, in particular Articles 213, 214 and 273 thereof, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which it is permissible for the tax authorities to refuse, on account of a failure to submit tax returns, a taxable person which has made acquisitions in the period during which its value added tax identification number was revoked the right to deduct value added tax on those acquisitions using value added tax returns filed — or invoices issued — after the reactivation of its identification number, on the sole ground that those acquisitions took place in the period during which its value added tax identification number was de-activated and where the substantive requirements have been satisfied and the right of deduction is not being invoked fraudulently or abusively.

         (1)  OJ C 144, 8.5.2017.


title: Case T-180/17: Judgment of the General Court of 25 September 2018 — EM Research Organization v EUIPO — Christoph Fischer and Others (EM) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark ‘EM’ — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Evidence produced for the first time before the General Court)

text:
               12.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 408/50

      Judgment of the General Court of 25 September 2018 — EM Research Organization v EUIPO — Christoph Fischer and Others (EM)
      (Case T-180/17) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark ‘EM’ - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Evidence produced for the first time before the General Court))
      (2018/C 408/63)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: EM Research Organization, Inc. (Okinawa, Japan) (represented by: J. Liesegang, M. Jost and N. Lang, lawyers)

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

         Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, interveners before the General Court: Christoph Fischer GmbH (Stephanskirchen, Germany), Ole Weinkath (Hünxe-Drevenack, Germany), Multikraft Produktions- und Handels GmbH (Pichl/Wels, Austria), Phytodor AG (Buochs, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Kinkeldey, J. Rosenhäger, K. Lochner and M. Peters, lawyers)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 January 2017 (Case R 2442/2015-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Christoph Fischer, Ole Weinkath, Multikraft Produktions- und Handel and Phytodor, on one hand, and, on the other, EM Research Organization.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders EM Research Organization, Inc. to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 161, 22.5.2017.


title: Case C-513/17: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 26 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Köln — Germany) — Proceedings brought by Josef Baumgartner (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Transport — Road transport — Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 — Article 19(2), first subparagraph — Administrative penalty for an infringement committed in the Member State of the seat of an undertaking imposed by the competent authorities of another Member State in which the infringement was detected)

text:
               12.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 408/29

      Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 26 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Köln — Germany) — Proceedings brought by Josef Baumgartner
      (Case C-513/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Transport - Road transport - Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 - Article 19(2), first subparagraph - Administrative penalty for an infringement committed in the Member State of the seat of an undertaking imposed by the competent authorities of another Member State in which the infringement was detected))
      (2018/C 408/37)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Amtsgericht Köln

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Josef Baumgartner

         Other parties: Bundesamt für Güterverkehr, Staatsanwaltschaft Köln

         Operative part of the judgment

      The first subparagraph of Article 19(2) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 must be interpreted as directly authorising the competent authorities of a Member State to impose a penalty on an undertaking or a manager of the undertaking for an infringement of that regulation detected in its territory for which no penalty has already been imposed, even if the infringement was committed in the territory of another Member State in which the undertaking has its seat.

         (1)  OJ C 382, 13.11.2017.


title: Case C-180/17: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — X, Y v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common policy on asylum and subsidiary protection — Directive 2013/32/EU — Article 46 — Directive 2008/115/EC — Article 13 — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 18, Article 19(2) and Article 47 — Right to an effective remedy — Principle of non-refoulement — Decision rejecting an application for international protection and imposing an obligation to return — National legislation providing for a second level of jurisdiction — Automatic suspensory effect limited to the action at first instance)

text:
               12.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 408/21

      Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — X, Y v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie
      (Case C-180/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common policy on asylum and subsidiary protection - Directive 2013/32/EU - Article 46 - Directive 2008/115/EC - Article 13 - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 18, Article 19(2) and Article 47 - Right to an effective remedy - Principle of non-refoulement - Decision rejecting an application for international protection and imposing an obligation to return - National legislation providing for a second level of jurisdiction - Automatic suspensory effect limited to the action at first instance))
      (2018/C 408/25)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Referring court

      Raad van State

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: X, Y

         Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 46 of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection and Article 13 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, read in the light of Articles 18, 19(2) and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which, whilst making provision for appeals against judgments delivered at first instance upholding a decision rejecting an application for international protection and imposing an obligation to return, does not confer on that remedy automatic suspensory effect even in the case where the person concerned invokes a serious risk of infringement of the principle of non-refoulement.

         (1)  OJ C 202, 26.6.2017.


title: Case T-238/17: Judgment of the General Court of 25 September 2018 — Gugler v EUIPO — Gugler France (GUGLER) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark GUGLER — Earlier national company name Gugler France — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Likelihood of confusion)

text:
               12.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 408/52

      Judgment of the General Court of 25 September 2018 — Gugler v EUIPO — Gugler France (GUGLER)
      (Case T-238/17) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark GUGLER - Earlier national company name Gugler France - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Likelihood of confusion))
      (2018/C 408/66)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Alexander Gugler (Maxdorf, Germany) (represented by: M.-C. Simon, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: initially P. Sipos, and subsequently by A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Gugler France (Besançon, France) (represented by: A. Grolée, lawyer)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 January 2017 (Case R 1008/2016-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Gugler France and Mr Gugler.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 31 January 2017 (Case R 1008/2016-1);

                  2.

                  Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Alexander Gugler;

                  3.

                  Orders Gugler France to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 195, 19.6.2017.


title: Case C-172/17 P: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 13 September 2018 — ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias v European Commission (Appeal — Arbitration clauses — Pocemon Agreement concluded under the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration 2007-2013 — Eligible costs — European Commission decision — Obligation to reimburse sums paid — Counter-claim)

text:
               12.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 408/18

      Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 13 September 2018 — ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias v European Commission
      (Case C-172/17 P) (1)

      ((Appeal - Arbitration clauses - Pocemon Agreement concluded under the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration 2007-2013 - Eligible costs - European Commission decision - Obligation to reimburse sums paid - Counter-claim))
      (2018/C 408/21)
      Language of the case: Greek

         Parties

         Appellant: ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias (represented by: S. Paliou, dikigoros)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and A. Kyratsou, acting as Agents)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the appeal;

                  2.

                  Orders ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 168, 29.5.2017.


title: Case T-528/18: Action brought on 4 September 2018 — XI v Commission

text:
               12.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 408/55

      Action brought on 4 September 2018 — XI v Commission
      (Case T-528/18)
      (2018/C 408/72)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: XI (represented by: N. Lhöest, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the Commission’s decision of 25 May 2018 rejecting the applicant’s complaint in so far as that decision contains medical data;

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay damages and interest, assessed ex aequo et bono at EUR 5 000 in compensation for the non-material harm suffered; and

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights, together with a breach of the duty of good administration and the duty of care, in so far as the decision refusing the applicant’s claim disclosed medical data which were, moreover, manifestly incorrect.


title: Judgment of the Court of 14 June 2018 in Case E-11/17 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland (Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Directive 2011/61/EU)

text:
               15.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 414/6

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      of 14 June 2018
      in Case E-11/17
      EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland

         (Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Directive 2011/61/EU)

      (2018/C 414/08)
      In Case E-11/17, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland – APPLICATION for a declaration that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at points 30, 31bb, 31d, 31eb and 31i of Annex IX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2011 on Alternative Investment Fund Managers and amending Directives 2003/41/EC and 2009/65/EC and Regulations (EC) No 1060/2009 and (EU) No 1095/2010), as adapted by Protocol 1 to the Agreement, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement that Act within the time prescribed, and/or by failing to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority of the measures it has adopted to implement that Act, the Court, composed of Páll Hreinsson, President, Per Christiansen and Bernd Hammermann (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 14 June 2018, the operative part of which is as follows:
      The Court hereby:

                  1.

                  Declares that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at points 30, 31bb, 31d, 31eb and 31i of Annex IX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2011 on Alternative Investment Fund Managers and amending Directives 2003/41/EC and 2009/65/EC and Regulations (EC) No 1060/2009 and (EU) No 1095/2010), as adapted to the Agreement under its Protocol 1, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed.

                  2.

                  Orders Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.


title: Case T-194/18: Order of the General Court of 4 September 2018 — Rewe-Beteiligungs-Holding International v EUIPO — Wessanen Benelux (BonNatura) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/77

      Order of the General Court of 4 September 2018 — Rewe-Beteiligungs-Holding International v EUIPO — Wessanen Benelux (BonNatura)
      (Case T-194/18) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate)
      (2018/C 427/104)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Rewe-Beteiligungs-Holding International GmbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: S. Brandstätter, M. Kinkeldey and J. Rosenhäger, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Sesma Merino and J. Ivanauskas, acting as Agents)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Wessanen Benelux BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 January 2013 (Case R 949/2017-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Wessanen Benelux and Rewe-Beteiligungs-Holding International.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

                  2.

                  Rewe-Beteiligungs-Holding International GmbH is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

         (1)  OJ C 166, 14.5.2018.


title: Case C-537/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 17 August 2018 — YV

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/11

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 17 August 2018 — YV
      (Case C-537/18)
      (2018/C 427/16)
      Language of the case: Polish

         Referring court

      Sąd Najwyższy

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: YV

         Respondent: Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa

         Question referred

      Should Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in conjunction with Article 9(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, (1) be interpreted as meaning that, where an appeal is brought before a court of final instance in a Member State against an alleged infringement of the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age in respect of a judge of that court, together with a motion for suspension of execution of the contested measure, that court — in order to protect the rights arising from EU law by ordering an interim measure provided for under national law — must refuse to apply national provisions which confer jurisdiction, in the case in which the appeal was lodged, on an organisational unit of that court which is not operational by reason of a failure to appoint the judges adjudicating within it?

         (1)  OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16.


title: Judgment of the Court of 14 July 2017 in Case E-9/16 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Kingdom of Norway (REACH Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 – Chemical substances – Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) – Free movement – Restrictions procedure – Legal basis)

text:
               4.1.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 1/7

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 14 July 2017
   in Case E-9/16
   EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Kingdom of Norway

      (REACH Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 – Chemical substances – Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) – Free movement – Restrictions procedure – Legal basis)

   (2018/C 1/09)
   In Case E-9/16, EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Kingdom of Norway – APPLICATION for a declaration that Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations arising from the Act referred to at point 12zc of Chapter XV of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH)), as adapted under its Protocol 1, and/or its obligations under the Agreement, by maintaining in force a national provision such as Section 2-32 of the Norwegian Product Regulation which bans the manufacture, import, export and sale of consumer products containing certain concentrations of perfluorooctanoic acid, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President and Judge-Rapporteur, Per Christiansen and Ása Ólafsdóttir (ad hoc), Judges, gave judgment on 14 July 2017, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The Court hereby:

               1.

               Dismisses the application.

               2.

               Orders the EFTA Surveillance Authority to bear the costs of the proceedings.


title: Judgment of the Court of 20 July 2017 in Case E-11/16 — Mobil Betriebskrankenkasse v Tryg Forsikring, supported by the Norwegian Motor Insurers’ Bureau (Trafikkforsikringsforeningen) (Article 93 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Rights of institutions responsible for benefits against liable third parties — Subrogation and direct rights)

text:
               4.1.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 1/8

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 20 July 2017
   in Case E-11/16
   Mobil Betriebskrankenkasse v Tryg Forsikring, supported by the Norwegian Motor Insurers’ Bureau (Trafikkforsikringsforeningen)

      (Article 93 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Rights of institutions responsible for benefits against liable third parties — Subrogation and direct rights)

   (2018/C 1/10)
   In Case E-11/16, Mobil Betriebskrankenkasse v Tryg Forsikring, supported by the Norwegian Motor Insurers’ Bureau (Trafikkforsikringsforeningen) — REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by Oslo District Court (Oslo tingrett) concerning the interpretation of Article 85(1) 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, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Benedikt Bogason (ad hoc), Judges, gave judgment on 20 July 2017, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               Where an institution responsible for benefits has, by virtue of the legislation which it administers, a subrogated or direct right against a third party responsible for an injury sustained in another EEA State, Article 93(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 requires other EEA States to recognise such rights as provided for under the law of the EEA State to which that institution is subject.

               2.

               However, that subrogated or direct right cannot exceed the rights that the injured person has against the third party responsible for the injury under the national law of the EEA State where the injury occurred, including any applicable rules of private international law.

               3.

               Nevertheless, the fact that, under the law of the EEA State in which the injury occurred, necessary treatment has been provided without giving rise to any costs for the injured person himself does not preclude the institution responsible for providing benefits from claiming compensation from the third party for costs incurred due to such treatment.


title: Case T-423/14: Judgment of the General Court of 1 February 2018 — Larko v Commission (State aid — Aid implemented by Greece — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market — Concept of State aid — Advantage — Private investor test — Amount of aid to be recovered — Commission Notice on State aid in the form of guarantees)

text:
               19.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/24

         Judgment of the General Court of 1 February 2018 — Larko v Commission
   (Case T-423/14) (1)

   ((State aid - Aid implemented by Greece - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market - Concept of State aid - Advantage - Private investor test - Amount of aid to be recovered - Commission Notice on State aid in the form of guarantees))
   (2018/C 104/31)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Larko Geniki Metalleftiki kai Metallourgiki AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: I. Dryllerakis, I. Soufleros, E. Triantafyllou, G. Psaroudakis, E. Rantos and N. Korogiannakis, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouchagiar and É. Gippini Fournier, Agents)

      Re:

   Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision 2014/539/EU of 27 March 2014 on the State aid SA.34572 (20113/C) (ex 13/NN) implemented by Greece for Larco General Mining & Metallurgical Company S.A. (OJ 2014 L 254, p. 24).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Larko Geniki Metalleftiki kai Metallourgiki AE to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 292, 1.9.2014.


title: Case T-216/15: Judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2018 — Dôvera zdravotná poist’ovňa v Commission (State aid — Health insurance bodies — Capital increase, debt repayment, subsidies and Risk Equalisation Scheme — Decision finding no State aid — Concept of State aid — Concept of undertaking and economic activity — Principle of solidarity — State supervision — Activity that is economic in nature — Competition on quality — Presence of operators seeking to make a profit — Pursuit, use and distribution of profits — Error of law — Error of assessment)

text:
               19.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/25

         Judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2018 — Dôvera zdravotná poist’ovňa v Commission
   (Case T-216/15) (1)

   ((State aid - Health insurance bodies - Capital increase, debt repayment, subsidies and Risk Equalisation Scheme - Decision finding no State aid - Concept of State aid - Concept of undertaking and economic activity - Principle of solidarity - State supervision - Activity that is economic in nature - Competition on quality - Presence of operators seeking to make a profit - Pursuit, use and distribution of profits - Error of law - Error of assessment))
   (2018/C 104/32)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Dôvera zdravotná poist’ovňa, a.s. (Bratislava, Slovakia) (represented by: O. Brouwer and A. Pliego Selie, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P.–J. Loewenthal and L. Armati, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: Union zdravotná poist’ovňa a.s. (Bratislava) (represented by: initially E. Pijnacker Hordijk and A. ter Haar, and subsequently A. ter Haar, lawyers)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Slovak Republic (represented by: B. Ricziová, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2015/248 of 15 October 2014 on the measures SA.23008 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) granted by the Slovak Republic to Spoločná zdravotná poisťovňa, a.s. (SZP) and Všeobecná zdravotná poisťovňa, a.s. (VšZP) (OJ 2015 L 41, p. 25).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision (EU) 2015/248 of 15 October 2014 on the measures SA.23008 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) implemented by the Slovak Republic for Spoločná zdravotná poisťovňa, a.s. (SZP) and Všeobecná zdravotná poisťovňa, a.s. (VšZP);

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Dôvera zdravotná poist’ovňa, a.s. and by Union zdravotná poist’ovňa a.s.;

               3.

               Orders the Republic of Slovakia to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 262, 10.8.2015.


title: Case C-700/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 14 December 2017 — Finanzamt Kyritz v Wolf-Henning Peters

text:
               19.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/15

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 14 December 2017 — Finanzamt Kyritz v Wolf-Henning Peters
   (Case C-700/17)
   (2018/C 104/19)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesfinanzhof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Finanzamt Kyritz

      Defendant: Wolf-Henning Peters

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the tax exemption for the provision of medical care by a specialist in clinical chemistry and laboratory diagnostics, in circumstances like those of the main proceedings, assessed under Article 132(1)(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) or under Article 132(1)(b) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax?

               2.

               Does the applicability of Article 132(1)(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax — if this provision is applicable — require that a confidential relationship exist between the doctor and the person being treated?

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


title: Case C-720/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 28 December 2017 — Mohammed Bilali

text:
               19.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/16

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 28 December 2017 — Mohammed Bilali
   (Case C-720/17)
   (2018/C 104/20)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant on a point of law: Mohammed Bilali

      Respondent authority: Bundesamt für Fremdenwesen und Asyl

      Question referred

   Do the provisions of EU law, in particular Article 19(3) of Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 (1) (the Qualification Directive), preclude a national provision of a Member State concerning the possibility of revocation of subsidiary protection status pursuant to which subsidiary protection status may be revoked without a change in the factual circumstances themselves which are relevant for the purpose of granting that status, but rather only where the state of knowledge of the authority in this regard has undergone a change, and, in that context, without either a misrepresentation or an omission of facts on the part of the third-country national or stateless person having been a determinant factor in the granting of the subsidiary protection status?

      (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-730/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 28 December 2017 — Edward Reich, Debora Lieber, Ella Reich, Ezra Bernard Reich v Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV

text:
               19.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/17

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 28 December 2017 — Edward Reich, Debora Lieber, Ella Reich, Ezra Bernard Reich v Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV
   (Case C-730/17)
   (2018/C 104/22)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Edward Reich, Debora Lieber, Ella Reich, Ezra Bernard Reich

      Defendant: Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV

      Question referred

   Are Articles 3, 5, 6 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (1) (‘Regulation No 261/2004’) to be interpreted as meaning that — in the case where an operating Community air carrier, for the purposes of Regulation No 261/2004, concludes a contract for the carriage of passengers by air with consumers that includes a train journey from a railway station located in the territory of a Member State in which those consumers reside to an airport located in the territory of a second Member State from which the consumers will take their flight to their final destination, namely an airport located in the territory of a non-Member country, and those consumers have no legal connection with the company carrying out the train journey but the air carrier clearly has agreements with that company, and there was a long delay in the train journey, which is included in the contract, that resulted in those consumers being unable to catch their flight from the airport located in the territory of the second Member State — those consumers may rely on the rights provided for by Regulation No 261/2004 and demand compensation in accordance with Articles 5, 6 and 7 of that regulation?

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.


title: Case T-793/16: Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2018 — Şölen Çikolata Gıda Sanayi ve Ticaret v EUIPO — Zaharieva (Display box for cornets) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a display box for cornets — Earlier international registration designating Bulgaria — Ground for invalidity — Use in the subsequent design of a distinctive sign the holder of which has the right to prohibit such use — Article 25(1)(e) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Obligation to state reasons — Article 62 of Regulation No 6/2002 — Duty of diligence — Article 63(1) of Regulation No 6/2002)

text:
               19.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/35

         Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2018 — Şölen Çikolata Gıda Sanayi ve Ticaret v EUIPO — Zaharieva (Display box for cornets)
   (Case T-793/16) (1)

   ((Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a display box for cornets - Earlier international registration designating Bulgaria - Ground for invalidity - Use in the subsequent design of a distinctive sign the holder of which has the right to prohibit such use - Article 25(1)(e) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 62 of Regulation No 6/2002 - Duty of diligence - Article 63(1) of Regulation No 6/2002))
   (2018/C 104/46)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Şölen Çikolata Gıda Sanayi ve Ticaret AŞ (Şehitkamil Gaziantep, Turkey) (represented by: T. Tsenova, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the Court: Elka Zaharieva (Plovdiv, Bulgaria) (represented by: A. Kostov, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 September 2016 (Case R 1143/2015-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Şölen Çikolata Gıda Sanayi ve Ticaret and Mrs Zaharieva.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 12 September 2016 (Case R 1143/2015-3);

               2.

               Grants the application for a declaration that the design registered under number 002343244-0002 is invalid;

               3.

               Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Şölen Çikolata Gıda Sanayi ve Ticaret before the General Court and before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO;

               4.

               Orders Mrs Elka Zaharieva to bear her own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.


title: Case T-611/15: Judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2018 — Edeka-Handelsgesellschaft Hessenring v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Table of contents of the Commission file relating to proceedings under Article 101 TFEU — Refusal of access — Obligation to state reasons — Obligation to inform about available remedies — Exception for the protection of the purpose of investigations — General presumption of confidentiality)

text:
               19.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/29

         Judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2018 — Edeka-Handelsgesellschaft Hessenring v Commission
   (Case T-611/15) (1)

   ((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Table of contents of the Commission file relating to proceedings under Article 101 TFEU - Refusal of access - Obligation to state reasons - Obligation to inform about available remedies - Exception for the protection of the purpose of investigations - General presumption of confidentiality))
   (2018/C 104/37)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Edeka-Handelsgesellschaft Hessenring mbH (Melsungen, Germany) (represented by: E. Wagner and H. Hoffmeyer, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, L. Wildpanner and A. Buchet, then F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, A. Buchet and F. Erlbacher and finally F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and A. Buchet, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   First, action based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of the Commission decision of 3 September 2015 refusing the applicant access to the non-confidential version of the Commission decision of 4 December 2013 relating to proceedings under Article 101 TFEU and of Article 53 of the EEA Agreement [Case AT.39914 — Euro Interest Rate Derivatives (EIRD) — Settlement procedure] and to the table of contents of the administrative file of that procedure and, secondly, action based on Article 265 TFEU and seeking a declaration that the Commission unlawfully failed to establish a non-confidential version of Decision C(2013) 8512 final and of the table of contents relating to that procedure.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Edeka-Handelsgesellschaft Hessenring mbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 27, 25.1.2016.


title: Case T-851/16: Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2018 — Access Info Europe v European Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — EU-Turkey statements of 8 and 18 March 2016 — Implementation by the European Union or by the Member States of the measures concerned — Documents drawn up or received by the legal service of an institution — Legal advice — Analyses of the legality of the measures provided for in connection with the implementation of the EU-Turkey statement of 8 March 2016 — Refusal to grant access — Article 4(1)(a) of Regulation No 1049/2001 — Exception relating to the protection of the public interest in respect of international relations — Second indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 — Exception relating to the protection of court proceedings — Exception relating to the protection of legal advice)

text:
               19.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/38

         Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2018 — Access Info Europe v European Commission
   (Case T-851/16) (1)

   ((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - EU-Turkey statements of 8 and 18 March 2016 - Implementation by the European Union or by the Member States of the measures concerned - Documents drawn up or received by the legal service of an institution - Legal advice - Analyses of the legality of the measures provided for in connection with the implementation of the EU-Turkey statement of 8 March 2016 - Refusal to grant access - Article 4(1)(a) of Regulation No 1049/2001 - Exception relating to the protection of the public interest in respect of international relations - Second indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 - Exception relating to the protection of court proceedings - Exception relating to the protection of legal advice))
   (2018/C 104/49)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Access Info Europe (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: O. Brouwer, E. Raedts and J. Wolfhagen, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Buchet and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2016) 6029 final of 19 September 2016 confirming the refusal to grant the applicant access to documents from the Commission’s Legal Service which purportedly concern the legality of the measures adopted by the European Union and its Member States in implementing the actions set out in the statement of the Heads of State or Government of the European Union of 8 March 2016, adopted following their meeting with the Turkish Prime Minister on 7 March 2016.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls European Commission Decision C(2016) 6029 final of 19 September 2016, in so far as it refuses to grant partial access to Access Info Europe to the first sentence of the part entitled ‘Legal framework’ of the Commission document with the reference Ares(2016) 2453347, and to the first sentence of point I(a) entitled ‘EU Legal Framework’, of Attachment 1 to the Commission document with the reference Ares(2016) 2453181;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 53, 20.2.2017.


title: Case T-718/15: Judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2018 — PTC Therapeutics International v EMA (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Document held by the EMA and submitted in the context of the application for marketing authorisation for the medicinal product Translarna — Decision to grant a third party access to the document — Exception relating to the protection of commercial interests — No general presumption of confidentiality)

text:
               19.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/30

         Judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2018 — PTC Therapeutics International v EMA
   (Case T-718/15) (1)

   ((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Document held by the EMA and submitted in the context of the application for marketing authorisation for the medicinal product Translarna - Decision to grant a third party access to the document - Exception relating to the protection of commercial interests - No general presumption of confidentiality))
   (2018/C 104/38)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: PTC Therapeutics International Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented initially by: C. Thomas, Barrister, G. Castle, B. Kelly, H. Billson, Solicitors, and M. Demetriou QC, and, subsequently, by C. Thomas, M. Demetriou, G. Castle and B. Kelly)

      Defendant: European Medicines Agency (EMA) (represented by: T. Jabłoński, A. Spina, S. Marino, A. Rusanov and N. Rampal Olmedo, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: European Confederation of Pharmaceutical Entrepreneurs (Eucope) (represented by: D. Scannell, Barrister, and S. Cowlishaw, Solicitor)

      Re:

   Action under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Decision EMA/722323/2015 of the EMA of 25 November 2015, granting to a third party, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43), access to a document containing information submitted in the context of an application for marketing authorisation for the medicinal product Translarna.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders PTC Therapeutics International Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), including those relating to the application for interim measures;

               3.

               Orders the European Confederation of Pharmaceutical Entrepreneurs (Eucope) to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 59, 15.2.2016.