title: Case T-252/19: Action brought on 15 April 2019 — Pech v Council

text:
               24.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/60

      Action brought on 15 April 2019 — Pech v Council
      (Case T-252/19)
      (2019/C 213/59)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Laurent Pech (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: O. Brouwer and T. McGrath, lawyers)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the Council decision contained in a letter to the applicant of 12 February 2019 refusing full access to document ST 13593 2018 INIT (legal opinion of Council legal service of 25 October 2018), pursuant to Articles 4(2) and 4(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, (1);

                  —

                  in subsidiary order, order the Council to grant wider partial access to document ST 13593 2018 INIT, pursuant to Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001; and

                  —

                  order the Council to pay the applicant’s costs, including the costs of any intervening parties.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging an error in law and misapplication of the second indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation 1049/2001.

                              —

                              It is argued that the Council failed to demonstrate that the requested document contained legal advice.

                              —

                              The applicant further argues that the Council misinterpreted and misapplied Article 4(2), second indent, of Regulation 1049/2001, by not taking into account the provisions of EU primary law summarised in the application as well as the principle that EU legislative documents are subject to the widest possible access, while also relying on vague and subjective notions not provided for in EU law to justify non-disclosure.

                              —

                              The Council committed an error in law and misapplied the overriding public interest test.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging an error in law and misapplication of Article 4(3), first paragraph, of Regulation 1049/2001.

                              —

                              The applicant argues that the Council failed to show that full disclosure would specifically and effectively undermine the decision-making process in question.

                              —

                              The Council misinterpreted and misapplied Article 4(3), first paragraph, of Regulation 1049/2001 and the case-law of the EU Courts, by ignoring the provisions of EU primary law summarised in the application and the principle that EU legislative documents are subject to the widest possible access.

                              —

                              The Council failed to properly assess the public interest in disclosure.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, a subsidiary plea, alleging that, should the exceptions relied upon be applicable to the requested document, the Council breached Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, in that it evidently failed to fulfil its obligation to grant the (proper and required) partial access it should have granted to the requested document under the said Article 4(6), by withholding access to the entire section on the legal analysis.

         (1)  Regulation (EC) 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).


title: Case T-253/19: Action brought on 15 April 2019 — BG v Parliament

text:
               24.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/62

      Action brought on 15 April 2019 — BG v Parliament
      (Case T-253/19)
      (2019/C 213/60)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: BG (represented by: L. Levi, A. Champetier and A. Tymen, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Parliament

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the European Parliament’s decision of 18 May 2018 terminating the applicant’s contract;

                  —

                  if needed, annul the European Parliament’s decision of 4 January 2019 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 16 August 2018, notified on 9 January 2019;

                  —

                  order the defendant to compensate the applicant for the non-material damage suffered as a result of the fault of the defendant, evaluated at the sum of EUR 50 000;

                  —

                  order the defendant to bear 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 breach of the duty to state reasons and of the procedural rules applicable in the case of termination of the contract in question.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging violation of Articles 12a and 24 of the Staff Regulations and in this connection infringement of the right to have one’s affairs handled impartially and fairly, violation of the duty to act diligently and manifest error of assessment.


title: Case T-260/19: Action brought on 12 April 2019 — Al-Tarazi v Council

text:
               24.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/62

      Action brought on 12 April 2019 — Al-Tarazi v Council
      (Case T-260/19)
      (2019/C 213/61)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Mazen Al-Tarazi (Shuwaikh, Kuwait) (represented by: G. Beck and A. Khan, Barristers, and S. Patel, Solicitor)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  declare Article 1 of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/85 of 21 January 2019 (1) and Article 1 of Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2019/87 of 21 January 2019 (2) inapplicable to the applicant;

                  —

                  annul, insofar as it concerns the applicant, Council Implementing Regulation 2019/85 and Council implementing Decision 2019/87;

                  —

                  declare that the applicant’s name be removed from the Annex (at number 266 thereto) of Council Implementing Regulation 2019/85 and from the Annex (at number 266 thereto) of Council Implementing Decision 2019/87; and

                  —

                  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 that the defendant has provided insufficient or unsubstantiated reasons for the applicant’s designation.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s designation is based on a manifest error of assessment of the facts, in so far as the defendant would have failed to adduce evidence of the facts indicated which would underpin or would purportedly underpin the reasoning of the measures taken or in so far as the defendant would have drawn unreasonable inferences from these facts.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s designation violates the applicant’s right of defence.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s designation violates the applicant’s property rights, freedom to trade and the principle of proportionality.

         (1)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/85 of 21 January 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ L 18I, 21.1.2019, p. 4).

         (2)  Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2019/87 of 21 January 2019 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ L 18I, 21.1.2019, p. 13).


title: Case T-269/19: Action brought on 22 April 2019 — Imagina Media Audiovisual v Commission

text:
               24.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/65

      Action brought on 22 April 2019 — Imagina Media Audiovisual v Commission
      (Case T-269/19)
      (2019/C 213/63)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Imagina Media Audiovisual, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: P. Kuypers, N. Groot, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the Commission decision Ares(2019)856949, whereby the Commission imposed a two-year exclusion on the applicant and registered the applicant in the early detection and exclusion database (1);

                  —

                  order the Commission to compensate the applicant for the damage caused by the contested decision;

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging that the Commission errs in law by failing to conduct its own review or analysis, solely relying on the findings of the US Department of Justice without own proper review and incorrectly interpreting the findings of the US Department of Justice. As a result, the Commission makes an error of assessment of the facts and thus breaching the duty of care.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission wrongfully excludes the applicant, therefore breaching Article 136(1)(c) of Regulation 2018/1046 and the rights of defence of the applicant by not clearly stating what exactly constitutes grave professional misconduct. Furthermore, the Commission allegedly errs in stating that the applicant is also excluded from on-going tenders since this does not follow from the operative part of the contested decision, by excluding the applicant for conduct related to media and marketing rights in sports in a tender for audio-visual coverage of EU current affairs since these are different markets that do not impact each other so that the reliability of the applicant in contracts for the European Union can be demonstrated, and in deciding that the applicant should be excluded since it did not have sufficient evidence to reach the contested decision and the non-prosecution agreement of the applicant with the US Department of Justice does not state that the applicant or its CEO’s are guilty.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission errs in law by deciding that the exclusion would be proportional within the meaning of Article 136(3) Regulation 2018/1046 and thereby disregarding lack of impact on the financial interests and image of the Union and the time elapsed since the conduct.

                  4.

                  Forth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in deciding that the remedial measures taken by the Applicant are provisional and are insufficient having regard to Article 136(6)(a) in conjunction with 136(7) Regulation 2018/1046.

                  5.

                  Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission breaches the fundamental principle of equal treatment by treating the Applicant differently than other tenderers who concluded non-prosecution agreement with the US Department of Justice.

                  6.

                  Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Commission caused damages to the applicant by unlawfully deciding that the applicant should be excluded from the procurement grant procedures governed by Regulation 2018/1046.

         (1)  Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union, amending Regulations (EU) No 1296/2013, (EU) No 1301/2013, (EU) No 1303/2013, (EU) No 1304/2013, (EU) No 1309/2013, (EU) No 1316/2013, (EU) No 223/2014, (EU) No 283/2014, and Decision No 541/2014/EU and repealing Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012, OJ L 193, 30.7.2018, p.1.


title: Case T-270/19: Action brought on 23 April 2019 — Amazon Technologies v EUIPO (ring)

text:
               24.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/66

      Action brought on 23 April 2019 — Amazon Technologies v EUIPO (ring)
      (Case T-270/19)
      (2019/C 213/64)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Amazon Technologies, Inc. (Seattle, Washington, United States) (represented by: A. Klett and C. Mikyska, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark ‘ring’ — Application for registration No 1 401 009

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 February 2019 in Case R 2211/2018-5

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order the respondant to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and of the proceedings before the EUIPO Board of Appeal including the necessary expenses of Applicant in both proceedings.

         Pleas in law

                  —

                  Having refused protection for the mark in question, the Board of Appeal has infringed Articles 7(1)(b) and (c) (2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.


title: Case T-272/19: Action brought on 25 April 2019 — TO v EEAS

text:
               24.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/67

      Action brought on 25 April 2019 — TO v EEAS
      (Case T-272/19)
      (2019/C 213/65)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: TO (represented by: G. Generet, lawyer)

         Defendant: European External Action Service

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  Annul the decision of the AECE of the EEAS of 15 June 2018 finding that the applicant does not fulfil all the conditions of employment provided for in Article 82 of the CEOS and cannot be engaged as an Article 3b contract staff member in the EEAS;

                  —

                  Annul the decision of the AECE of the EEAS of 14 January 2019 rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant on 14 September 2018;

                  —

                  Order the EEAS to pay the applicant compensation assessed at EUR 36 992.52 corresponding to one year’s remuneration under a CA FG II contract in accordance with the salary scale in force from 1 November 2017, subject to more precise calculation during the proceedings;

                  —

                  Order the EEAS to calculate the loss in terms of pension entitlement resulting from the applicant not being recruited;

                  —

                  Order the EEAS to pay the applicant compensation of EUR 15 000 by way of compensation for non-material damage resulting from the harm to her dignity and professional reputation;

                  —

                  Order the EEAS to pay the applicant compensation of EUR 15 000 by way of compensation for non-material damage resulting from the harm to her health and well-being;

                  —

                  Order the EEAS to pay the applicant compensation of EUR 15 000 by way of compensation for non-material damage resulting from the infringement by the EEAS of Regulation No 45/2001 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data;

                  —

                  Order the EEAS to pay the applicant compensation of EUR 10 000 by way of compensation for non-material damage resulting from breach of medical confidentiality and the confidential nature of personal data in the applicant’s medical file;

                  —

                  Order the EEAS to pay the applicant compensation of EUR 15 000 by way of compensation for non-material damage resulting from slander and/or defamation in respect of the applicant;

                  —

                  Order the EEAS to pay all 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 infringement of the second paragraph of Article 33 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and Articles 82 and 83 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union, the principles of proportionality and the right to be heard, the right to good administration and the duty of care, the principle of non-discrimination and the right to be treated fairly and impartially and the prohibition of psychological harassment.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1) and of Article 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.


title: Case T-275/19: Action brought on 24 April 2019 — PNB Banka and Others v ECB

text:
                  24.6.2019

                  EN

                  Official Journal of the European Union

                  C 213/69

         Action brought on 24 April 2019 — PNB Banka and Others v ECB
         (Case T-275/19)
         (2019/C 213/67)
         Language of the case: English

            Parties

            Applicants: PNB Banka AS (Riga, Latvia),  CR (*1),  CT (*1) (represented by: O. Behrends, and M. Kirchner, lawyers)

            Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB)

            Form of order sought

         The applicants claim that the Court should:

                     —

                     annul the ECB’s decision of 14 February 2019 to conduct an on-site inspection on the premises of PNB Banka AS and its group companies;

                     —

                     order the defendant to pay the costs.

            Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                     1.

                     First plea in law, alleging that the ECB was not the competent supervisory authority with respect to PNB Banka AS at the time of the decision to conduct the on-site inspection.

                     2.

                     Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision was not ‘necessary’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the SSM Regulation. (1)

                     3.

                     Third plea in law, alleging that the ECB failed to duly exercise its discretion pursuant to Article 12(1) of the SSM Regulation.

                     4.

                     Fourth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the principle of proportionality.

                     5.

                     Fifth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the applicants’ rights to be heard.

                     6.

                     Sixth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated its obligation to examine and appraise carefully and impartially all the relevant aspects of the individual case.

                     7.

                     Seventh plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the obligation to provide adequate reasoning for its decision.

                     8.

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

                     9.

                     Ninth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the principle of equal treatment and acted in a discriminatory manner with respect to the applicants.

                     10.

                     Tenth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated Article 19 of and recital 75 to the preamble of the SSM Regulation and committed a détournement de pouvoir.

            (*1)  Information erased or replaced within the framework of protection of personal data and/or confidentiality.

            (1)  Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions (OJ 2013 L 287, p. 63).


title: Case T-277/19: Action brought on 26 April 2019 — BK v European Asylum Support Office

text:
               24.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/71

      Action brought on 26 April 2019 — BK v European Asylum Support Office
      (Case T-277/19)
      (2019/C 213/68)
      Language of the case: Greek

         Parties

         Applicant: BK (represented by: B. Christianos, A. Skoulikis and D. Karagkounis, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Asylum Support Office (EASO)

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  Annul the contested decision of the appointing authority, the content of which is set out in the email of 20 September 2018 from the head of the Administration Department, and the implied decision of the appointing authority rejecting the applicant’s complaint. Consequently, EASO must take the measures necessary to implement the decision of the Court, in accordance with Article 266 TFEU, with retroactive effect;

                  —

                  Order the defendant to pay all the applicant’s 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 the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging a failure to state reasons and, therefore, breach of an essential procedural requirement within the meaning of Article 263 TFEU.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging an inadequate statement of reasons for the contested decision, which contains a substantive error.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging an error of law in that the decision did not take account of the interests of the service and the duty of the Administration to have regard for the welfare of its staff.


title: Case T-280/19: Action brought on 30 April 2019 — Highgate Capital Management v Commission

text:
               24.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/73

      Action brought on 30 April 2019 — Highgate Capital Management v Commission
      (Case T-280/19)
      (2019/C 213/70)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Highgate Capital Management LLP (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Struys, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the Commission decision rejecting the applicant’s complaint (Case SA.53105 — Alleged aid to Eurobank Ergasias through sale of Piraeus Bank Bulgaria) at least insofar as it relates to the breaches of the restructuring commitments in Case SA.43364 and Case SA.43363;

                  —

                  order the Commission to bear the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s decision breached essential procedural requirements and violated the following:

                              —

                              Article 24(2) of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, (1) and point 72 of the Code of Best Practices for the Conduct of State Aid Control Procedures; (2)

                              —

                              the applicant’s right to be heard;

                              —

                              the duty to state reasons, protected under Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

                              —

                              the applicant’s right to appeal, protected under Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission incorrectly concluded that (i) the commitments given in Case SA.43364 in relation to the State aid received by Piraeus Bank, and (ii) the commitments given in Case SA.43363 in relation to the State aid received by Eurobank Ergasias, did not apply ratione temporis since the closing of the sale of Piraeus Bank Bulgaria will take place after 31 December 2018.

         (1)  OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9.

         (2)  OJ 2018 C 253, p. 14.


title: Case T-282/19: Action brought on 30 April 2019 — Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v EUIPO — Filotas Bellas & Yios ((Halloumi χαλλούμι Vermion grill cheese M BELAS PREMIUM GREEK DAIRY SINCE 1927)

text:
               24.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/75

      Action brought on 30 April 2019 — Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v EUIPO — Filotas Bellas & Yios ((Halloumi χαλλούμι Vermion grill cheese M BELAS PREMIUM GREEK DAIRY SINCE 1927)
      (Case T-282/19)
      (2019/C 213/72)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi (Nicosia, Cyprus) (represented by: S. Malynicz QC (Queen’s Counsel), S. Baran, Barrister, and V. Marsland, Solicitor)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Filotas Bellas & Yios AE (Alexandreia Imathias, Greece)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

         Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark Halloumi χαλλούμι Vermion grill cheese/grill est/grill kase M BELAS PREMIUM GREEK DAIRY SINCE 1927 — European Union trade mark No 12 172 276

         Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 February 2019 in Case R 2295/2017-4

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order the Defendant to bear its own costs and pay those of the Applicant for Annulment.

         Pleas in law

                  —

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

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 59(1)(b) of (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.


title: Case T-286/19: Action brought on 3 May 2019 — Azarov v Council

text:
               24.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/78

      Action brought on 3 May 2019 — Azarov v Council
      (Case T-286/19)
      (2019/C 213/74)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

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

         Defendant: Council of the European Union

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/354 of 4 March 2019 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2019 L 64, p. 7) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/352 of 4 March 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2019 L 64, p. 1), in so far as they relate to the applicant;

                  —

                  order specific measures of organisation pursuant to Article 64 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, in particular:

                              a)

                              invite the Council to submit documents on the examination of the observance of the rights of the defence and of the right to effective legal protection and on the examination of the validity of the allegations; and

                              b)

                              invite the EEAS to submit documents on the examination of the observance of the rights of the defence and of the right to effective legal protection;

                  —

                  order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings pursuant to Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of the action, the applicant claims that the challenged legal acts are vitiated by a manifest error of assessment.
      First, the applicant complains of infringement of the defendant’s formal examination obligations, in particular with regard to independent examination, examination of jurisdiction and observance of the rights of the defence and of the right to effective judicial protection. In this regard, he claims that the defendant has not complied with its obligations set out in the judgment of the General Court of 19 December 2018, Azarov v Council (C-530/17 P, EU:C:2018:1031).
      Further, the applicant relies on an infringement of the defendant’s duty to state reasons, as it failed to examine the validity of the allegations made against the applicant.


title: Case T-288/19: Action brought on 3 May 2019 — Divaro v EUIPO — Grendene (IPANEMA)

text:
               24.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/79

      Action brought on 3 May 2019 — Divaro v EUIPO — Grendene (IPANEMA)
      (Case T-288/19)
      (2019/C 213/75)
      Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

         Parties

         Applicant: Divaro, SA (Oviedo, Spain) (represented by: M. Santos Quintana and M. A. Fernández Munárriz, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Grendene, SA (Sobral, Brazil)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

         Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark IPANEMA — Application for registration No 14 180 038

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 February 2019 in Case R 1785/2018-2

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of 22 February 2019 in Case R 1785/2018-2;

                  —

                  annul the decision of the Opposition Division of 10 July 2018 (opposition B 2 598 285;

                  —

                  order that the opposing mark EUTM No 14 180 038 is to be registered for all the goods referred to in the application;

                  —

                  order the defendant to bear its own costs and to pay the applicant’s costs.

         Plea in law

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


title: Case T-290/19: Action brought on 3 May 2019 — Stada Arzneimittel v EUIPO (Representation of two curved red lines arranged one above the other)

text:
               24.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/80

      Action brought on 3 May 2019 — Stada Arzneimittel v EUIPO (Representation of two curved red lines arranged one above the other)
      (Case T-290/19)
      (2019/C 213/76)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Stada Arzneimittel AG (Bad Vilbel, Germany) (represented by: J.-C. Plate and R. Kaase, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark (Representation of two curved red lines arranged one above the other) — Application for registration No 1 375 540

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 February 2019 in Case R 1918/2018-5

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay the costs.

         Plea in law

                  —

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


title: Case T-295/19: Action brought on 3 May 2019 — Klymenko v Council

text:
               24.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/80

      Action brought on 3 May 2019 — Klymenko v Council
      (Case T-295/19)
      (2019/C 213/77)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Oleksandr Viktorovych Klymenko (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: M. Phelippeau, lawyer)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  declare the action brought by Mr Oleksandr Viktorovych Klymenko admissible;

                  —

                  annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/354 of 4 March 2019 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine;

                  —

                  annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/352 of 4 March 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine;

                  —

                  order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings in accordance with Articles 87 and 91 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons, in that insufficient reasons are given for the contested measures.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial protection as enshrined in the fundamental principles of EU law and set out in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and of Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging a lack of legal basis, since Article 29 of the Treaty on European Union cannot provide a legal basis for the restrictive measures adopted against the applicant.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment, in that the applicant has provided evidence proving the lack of a sufficient factual basis for bringing criminal proceedings.

                  5.

                  Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to respect for property, a fundamental principle of EU law enshrined in Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and in Article 1 of Additional Protocol No 1 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.


title: Case T-296/19: Action brought on 6 May 2019 — Sumol + Compal Marcas v EUIPO — Heretat Mont-Rubi (SUM011)

text:
               24.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/82

      Action brought on 6 May 2019 — Sumol + Compal Marcas v EUIPO — Heretat Mont-Rubi (SUM011)
      (Case T-296/19)
      (2019/C 213/78)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Sumol + Compal Marcas, SA (Carnaxide, Portugal) (represented by: J. Pimenta and A. Sebastião, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Heretat Mont-Rubi, SA (Font-Rubi, Spain)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

         Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark SUM011 — Application for registration No 13 761 168

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 February 2019 in Case R 1662/2018-5

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  alter the contested decision and order the refusal of EUTM Application No. 13 761 168 SUM011 for the remaining services in classes 35 and 39;

                  —

                  order the other parties to bear the costs of the present proceedings, as well as those of the opposition and appeal proceedings before EUIPO.

         Plea in law

                  —

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


title: Case T-508/18: Order of the General Court of 30 April 2019 — OLX v EUIPO — Stra (STRADIA)

text:
               24.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/83

      Order of the General Court of 30 April 2019 — OLX v EUIPO — Stra (STRADIA)
      (Case T-508/18) (1)

      (2019/C 213/79)
      Language of the case: English
      The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 373, 15.10.2018.


title: Case T-543/18: Order of the General Court of 30 April 2019 — XK v Commission

text:
               24.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/83

      Order of the General Court of 30 April 2019 — XK v Commission
      (Case T-543/18) (1)

      (2019/C 213/80)
      Language of the case: French
      The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 399, 5.11.2018.


title: Case T-546/18: Order of the General Court of 30 April 2019 — XM and Others v Commission

text:
               24.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/83

      Order of the General Court of 30 April 2019 — XM and Others v Commission
      (Case T-546/18) (1)

      (2019/C 213/81)
      Language of the case: French
      The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 399, 5.11.2018.


title: Case T-572/18: Order of the General Court of 30 April 2019 — YS v Commission

text:
               24.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/84

      Order of the General Court of 30 April 2019 — YS v Commission
      (Case T-572/18) (1)

      (2019/C 213/84)
      Language of the case: French
      The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 408, 12.11.2018.


title: Case C-24/17: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Österreichischer Gewerkschaftsbund, Gewerkschaft Öffentlicher Dienst v Republik Österreich (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Prohibition of all discrimination on grounds of age — Directive 2000/78/EC — Exclusion of professional experience obtained before the age of 18 — New system of remuneration and advancement — Maintenance of the difference in treatment — Freedom of movement for workers — Article 45 TFEU — Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 — Article 7(1) — National legislation providing for account to be taken of a proportion of previous periods of service)

text:
               8.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 230/2

      Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Österreichischer Gewerkschaftsbund, Gewerkschaft Öffentlicher Dienst v Republik Österreich
      (Case C-24/17) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Prohibition of all discrimination on grounds of age - Directive 2000/78/EC - Exclusion of professional experience obtained before the age of 18 - New system of remuneration and advancement - Maintenance of the difference in treatment - Freedom of movement for workers - Article 45 TFEU - Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 - Article 7(1) - National legislation providing for account to be taken of a proportion of previous periods of service)
      (2019/C 230/02)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Oberster Gerichtshof

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Österreichischer Gewerkschaftsbund, Gewerkschaft Öffentlicher Dienst

         Defendant: Republik Österreich

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Articles 1, 2 and 6 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, read in combination with Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, entering into force retroactively, that, for the purposes of putting an end to discrimination on grounds of age, provides for the transition of active contractual public servants to a new system of remuneration and advancement in the context of which the initial grading of those contractual public servants is calculated according to their last remuneration paid under the previous system.

                  2.

                  In the event that national provisions cannot be interpreted in conformity with Directive 2000/78, the national court is required to provide, within the limits of its jurisdiction, the legal protection that individuals derive from that directive and to ensure the full effectiveness of that directive, disapplying, if need be, any incompatible provision of national legislation. EU law must be interpreted as meaning that, where discrimination, contrary to EU law, has been established, as long as measures reinstating equal treatment have not been adopted, the restoration of equal treatment, in a case such as that at issue in the main proceedings, involves granting contractual public servants treated unfavourably by the old system of remuneration and advancement the same benefits as those enjoyed by the contractual public servants favoured by that system, both as regards the recognition of periods of service completed before the age of 18 and advancement in the salary scale and, consequently, granting compensation to contractual public servants discriminated against that is equal to the difference between the amount of remuneration the contractual public servant should have received if he had not been treated in a discriminatory manner and the amount of remuneration he actually received.

                  3.

                  Article 45 TFEU and Article 7(1) of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, in accordance with which, in order to determine the remuneration seniority of a contractual public servant, previous service periods completed in an employment relationship with a local authority or municipal association of a Member State of the European Economic Area, the Republic of Turkey or the Swiss Confederation, or with an organisation of the European Union or an intergovernmental organisation of which Austria is a member, or with any similar body, must be accredited in their entirety, whereas all other previous service periods are taken into account only up to a maximum of 10 years and in so far as they are relevant.

         (1)  OJ C 112, 10.4.2017.


title: Case C-396/17: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Austria) — Martin Leitner v Landespolizeidirektion Tirol (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Prohibition of all discrimination on grounds of age — Directive 2000/78/EC — Exclusion of professional experience acquired before the age of 18 — New system of remuneration and advancement — Maintaining a difference in treatment — Right to an effective remedy — Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Justifications)

text:
               8.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 230/3

      Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Austria) — Martin Leitner v Landespolizeidirektion Tirol
      (Case C-396/17) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Prohibition of all discrimination on grounds of age - Directive 2000/78/EC - Exclusion of professional experience acquired before the age of 18 - New system of remuneration and advancement - Maintaining a difference in treatment - Right to an effective remedy - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Justifications)
      (2019/C 230/03)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Bundesverwaltungsgericht

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Martin Leitner

         Defendant: Landespolizeidirektion Tirol

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Articles 1, 2 and 6 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000, establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, read in conjunction with Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which entered into force retroactively, and which, for the purpose of putting a stop to discrimination on grounds of age, provides for the transfer of currently employed civil servants to a new remuneration and advancement system under which the initial classification of those civil servants is determined on the basis of the last salary they received under the previous system.

                  2.

                  Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 9 of Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, reduces the scope of the review which national courts are entitled to conduct, by excluding questions concerning the basis of the ‘transition amount’ calculated according to the rules of the previous remuneration and advancement system.

                  3.

                  In a situation where national provisions cannot be interpreted in a manner which is consistent with Directive 2000/78, the national court is obliged, within the scope of its powers, to guarantee the legal protection conferred on individuals by that directive and to guarantee that that protection is fully effective, by disapplying, if need be, any contrary provision of national law. EU law must be interpreted as meaning that where there has been a finding of discrimination which is contrary to EU law, and for as long as measures reinstating equal treatment have not been adopted, the reinstatement of equal treatment, in a case such as that at issue in the main proceedings, involves granting civil servants disadvantaged by the previous remuneration and advancement system the same benefits as those enjoyed by the civil servants treated more favourably by that system, both as regards the recognition of periods of service completed before the age of 18 and advancement in the pay scale and, accordingly, the award of financial compensation to those civil servants discriminated against in the sum of the difference between the amount of remuneration that the civil servant concerned ought to have received had he not been treated in a discriminatory manner and the remuneration which he in fact received.

         (1)  OJ C 347, 16.10.2017.


title: Case C-431/17: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 7 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Symvoulio tis Epikrateias — Greece) — Monachos Eirinaios, kata kosmon Antonios Giakoumakis tou Emmanouil v Dikigorikos Syllogos Athinon (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 98/5/EC — Access to the profession of lawyer — Monk who has obtained the professional qualification of lawyer in a Member State other than the host Member State — Article 3(2) — Condition requiring registration with the competent authority of the host Member State — Certificate attesting to registration with the competent authority of the home Member State — Refusal to register — Rules of professional conduct — Incompatibility of the status of monk with practice of the profession of lawyer)

text:
               8.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 230/4

      Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 7 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Symvoulio tis Epikrateias — Greece) — Monachos Eirinaios, kata kosmon Antonios Giakoumakis tou Emmanouil v Dikigorikos Syllogos Athinon
      (Case C-431/17) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 98/5/EC - Access to the profession of lawyer - Monk who has obtained the professional qualification of lawyer in a Member State other than the host Member State - Article 3(2) - Condition requiring registration with the competent authority of the host Member State - Certificate attesting to registration with the competent authority of the home Member State - Refusal to register - Rules of professional conduct - Incompatibility of the status of monk with practice of the profession of lawyer)
      (2019/C 230/04)
      Language of the case: Greek

         Referring court

      Symvoulio tis Epikrateias

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Monachos Eirinaios, kata kosmon Antonios Giakoumakis tou Emmanouil

         Defendant: Dikigorikos Syllogos Athinon

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 3(2) of Directive 98/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 to facilitate practice of the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State other than that in which the qualification was obtained must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, on account of the incompatibility under that legislation between the status of monk and practice of the profession of lawyer, prohibits a lawyer who has the status of monk, and who is registered as a lawyer with the competent authority of the home Member State, from registering with the competent authority of the host Member State in order to practise there under his home-country professional title.

         (1)  OJ C 309, 18.9.2017.


title: Case C-494/17: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d’appello di Trento — Italy) — Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca — MIUR v Fabio Rossato, Conservatorio di Musica F.A. Bonporti (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Fixed-term work — Contracts concluded with a public sector employer — Measures to penalise misuse of fixed-term employment contracts — Conversion of the employment relationship into a relationship of indefinite duration — Limitation on the retroactive effect of the conversion — No financial remedies)

text:
               8.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 230/5

      Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d’appello di Trento — Italy) — Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca — MIUR v Fabio Rossato, Conservatorio di Musica F.A. Bonporti
      (Case C-494/17) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Fixed-term work - Contracts concluded with a public sector employer - Measures to penalise misuse of fixed-term employment contracts - Conversion of the employment relationship into a relationship of indefinite duration - Limitation on the retroactive effect of the conversion - No financial remedies)
      (2019/C 230/06)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Corte d’appello di Trento

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca — MIUR

         Defendants: Fabio Rossato, Conservatorio di Musica F.A. Bonporti

         Operative part of the judgment

      Clause 5(1) of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work, concluded on 18 March 1999, which is annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, is to be interpreted as not precluding legislation which, as applied by the national supreme courts, precludes any entitlement to financial compensation on account of the misuse of successive fixed-term employment contracts for public-sector teachers whose employment relationship has been converted from a fixed-term relationship into one of indefinite duration, with limited retroactive effect, if such conversion is neither uncertain nor unpredictable or fortuitous and the limited account taken of the period of service completed under those successive fixed-term employment contracts constitutes a measure that is proportionate for the purpose of punishing that misuse, which is a matter for the national court to determine.

         (1)  OJ C 374, 6.11.2017.


title: Case C-568/17: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v L.W. Geelen (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC — Article 9(2)(c) and (e) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 52(a) — Article 56(1)(k) — Supply of services — Place of taxable transactions — Connecting factor for tax purposes — Interactive sessions of an erotic nature filmed and broadcast live on the internet — Entertainment activity — Definition — Place where the services are physically carried out)

text:
               8.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 230/7

      Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v L.W. Geelen
      (Case C-568/17) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC - Article 9(2)(c) and (e) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 52(a) - Article 56(1)(k) - Supply of services - Place of taxable transactions - Connecting factor for tax purposes - Interactive sessions of an erotic nature filmed and broadcast live on the internet - Entertainment activity - Definition - Place where the services are physically carried out)
      (2019/C 230/08)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Referring court

      Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: Staatssecretaris van Financien

         Respondent: L.W. Geelen

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Article 9(2)(c), first indent, of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 2002/38/EC of 7 May 2002, and Article 52(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, must be interpreted as meaning that a complex service, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which consists in offering interactive sessions of an erotic nature filmed and broadcast live on the internet constitutes an ‘entertainment activity’, within the meaning of those provisions, which must be considered as being ‘physically carried out’, within the meaning of those same provisions, in the place where the service provider has established his place of business or a permanent establishment whence that service is provided or, failing that, in the place of his domicile or habitual residence.

                  2.

                  Article 9(2)(e), twelfth indent, of Sixth Directive 77/388, as amended by Directive 2002/38, and Article 56(1)(k) of Directive 2006/112, read in conjunction with Article 11 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1777/2005 of 17 October 2005 laying down implementing measures for Directive 77/388, must be interpreted as meaning that a supply of services, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which consists in offering interactive sessions of an erotic nature filmed and broadcast live on the internet, does not come within the scope of those provisions when that service has been provided to beneficiaries who are all situated in the Member State of the provider of those services.

         (1)  OJ C 424, 11.2.2017.


title: Case C-631/17: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — SF v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social security for migrant workers — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Article 11(3)(e) — National of a Member State employed as a seaman on board a vessel flying the flag of a third State — Employer established in a Member State other than the worker’s State of residence — Determination of the applicable legislation)

text:
               8.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 230/9

      Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — SF v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst
      (Case C-631/17) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security for migrant workers - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Article 11(3)(e) - National of a Member State employed as a seaman on board a vessel flying the flag of a third State - Employer established in a Member State other than the worker’s State of residence - Determination of the applicable legislation)
      (2019/C 230/10)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Referring court

      Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: SF

         Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 11(3)(e) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, as amended by Regulation (EU) No 465/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012, must be interpreted to the effect that a situation such as the one at issue in the main proceedings in which a person, whilst working as a seaman for an employer established in a Member State on board a vessel flying the flag of a third State and travelling outside of the territory of the European Union, maintained his residence in his Member State of origin, falls within the scope of that provision, such that the applicable national legislation is that of the Member State of residence of that person.

         (1)  OJ C 63, 19.2.2018.


title: Case C-712/17: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria regionale di Lombardia — Italy) — EN.SA. Srl v Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Regionale Lombardia Ufficio Contenzioso (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Fictitious transactions — Impossibility of deducting the tax — Obligation on the issuer of an invoice to pay the VAT indicated thereon — Fine in an amount equal to the amount of the improperly deducted VAT — Whether compatible with the principles of VAT neutrality and proportionality)

text:
               8.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 230/10

      Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria regionale di Lombardia — Italy) — EN.SA. Srl v Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Regionale Lombardia Ufficio Contenzioso
      (Case C-712/17) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Fictitious transactions - Impossibility of deducting the tax - Obligation on the issuer of an invoice to pay the VAT indicated thereon - Fine in an amount equal to the amount of the improperly deducted VAT - Whether compatible with the principles of VAT neutrality and proportionality)
      (2019/C 230/11)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Commissione tributaria regionale di Lombardia

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: EN.SA. Srl

         Respondent: Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Regionale Lombardia Ufficio Contenzioso

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  In a situation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in which fictitious circular sales of electricity made between the same traders and for the same amounts did not cause tax losses, Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in the light of the principles of neutrality and proportionality, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which excludes the right to deduct value added tax (VAT) relating to fictitious transactions while requiring the persons who enter VAT on an invoice to pay that tax, including for a fictitious transaction, provided that national law allows the tax liability arising from that obligation to be adjusted when the issuer of that invoice, who was not acting in good faith, has, in sufficient time, wholly eliminated the risk of any loss of tax revenue, this being a matter for the referring court to ascertain.

                  2.

                  The principles of proportionality and neutrality of value added tax (VAT) must be interpreted as precluding, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, a rule of national law under which the unlawful deduction of VAT is penalised by a fine equal to the amount of the deduction made.

         (1)  OJ C 112, 26.3.2018.


title: Case C-170/18 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 May 2019 — CJ v European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) (Appeal — Civil service — Contract staff — European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control — Fixed-term contract — Termination of the contract — Compliance with a judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal — Res judicata by means of a judgment annulling a decision — Limits)

text:
               29.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 255/11

      Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 May 2019 — CJ v European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC)
      (Case C-170/18 P) (1)

      (Appeal - Civil service - Contract staff - European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control - Fixed-term contract - Termination of the contract - Compliance with a judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal - Res judicata by means of a judgment annulling a decision - Limits)
      (2019/C 255/14)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellant: CJ (represented by: V. Kolias, dikigoros)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) (represented by: J. Mannheim and A. Daume, acting as Agents, and by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, avocats)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the appeal.

                  2.

                  Orders CJ to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 301, 27.8.2018.


title: Case C-226/18: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 May 2019 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Krohn & Schröder GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Customs union — Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 — Article 212a — Import procedures — Customs debt — Exemption — Dumping — Subsidies — Imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China — Implementing Regulations (EU) No 1238/2013 and (EU) No 1239/2013 imposing an anti-dumping duty and a countervailing duty — Exemptions)

text:
               29.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 255/13

      Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 May 2019 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Krohn & Schröder GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen
      (Case C-226/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs union - Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Article 212a - Import procedures - Customs debt - Exemption - Dumping - Subsidies - Imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China - Implementing Regulations (EU) No 1238/2013 and (EU) No 1239/2013 imposing an anti-dumping duty and a countervailing duty - Exemptions)
      (2019/C 255/16)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Finanzgericht Hamburg

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Krohn & Schröder GmbH

         Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Article 212a of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 648/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 April 2005, must be interpreted as applying to the exemptions from anti-dumping and countervailing duties provided for in Article 3(1) of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1238/2013 of 2 December 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China, and Article 2(1) of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2013 of 2 December 2013 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China.

                  2.

                  Article 212a of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 648/2005, must be interpreted as meaning that, when it applies to the incurrence of a customs debt pursuant to Article 204(1) of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended, for exceeding the time limit under Article 49(1) of that regulation, the conditions laid down in Article 3(1)(a) of Implementing Regulation No 1238/2013 and in Article 2(1)(a) of Implementing Regulation No 1239/2013 are not fulfilled when the company which is affiliated with the company listed in the Annex to Commission Implementing Decision 2013/707/EU of 4 December 2013 confirming the acceptance of an undertaking offered in connection with the anti-dumping and anti-subsidy proceedings concerning imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China for the period of application of definitive measures, and which manufactured, consigned and invoiced the goods concerned, did not act as the importer of those goods and did not ensure the release of the goods into free circulation, even if it had the intention to do so and was the company to which the goods were actually delivered.

         (1)  OJ C 268, 30.7.2018.


title: Case C-235/18: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 15 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Vega International Car Transport and Logistic — Trading GmbH v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Warszawie (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 135(1)(b) — Supply of goods — Exemptions for other activities — Granting and negotiation of credit — Fuel cards)

text:
               29.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 255/14

      Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 15 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Vega International Car Transport and Logistic — Trading GmbH v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Warszawie
      (Case C-235/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 135(1)(b) - Supply of goods - Exemptions for other activities - Granting and negotiation of credit - Fuel cards)
      (2019/C 255/17)
      Language of the case: Polish

         Referring court

      Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: Vega International Car Transport and Logistic — Trading GmbH

         Other party to the proceedings: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Warszawie

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 135(1)(b) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those of the case in the main proceedings, the provision of fuel cards by a parent company to its subsidiaries, enabling those subsidiaries to refuel the vehicles they transport, may be classified as a service granting credit which is exempt from value added tax as referred to in that provision.

         (1)  OJ C 231, 2.7.2018.


title: Case C-306/18: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 15 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský soud v Ostravě — pobočka v Olomouci — Czech Republic) — KORADO a.s. v Generální ředitelství cel (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Welded steel parts — Radiators for central heating, not electrically heated — Headings 7307 and 7322 — Concepts of radiator ‘parts’ and ‘tube or pipe fittings’ — Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/23 — Validity)

text:
               29.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 255/14

      Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 15 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský soud v Ostravě — pobočka v Olomouci — Czech Republic) — KORADO a.s. v Generální ředitelství cel
      (Case C-306/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Welded steel parts - Radiators for central heating, not electrically heated - Headings 7307 and 7322 - Concepts of radiator ‘parts’ and ‘tube or pipe fittings’ - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/23 - Validity)
      (2019/C 255/18)
      Language of the case: Czech

         Referring court

      Krajský soud v Ostravě — pobočka v Olomouci

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: KORADO a.s.

         Defendant: Generální ředitelství cel

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1101/2014 of 16 October 2014, must be interpreted as meaning that welded steel parts such as those at issue in the main proceedings must, subject to the referring court’s assessment of all the factual information available to it, be classified under CN heading 7307, as ‘tube or pipe fittings’.

         (1)  OJ C 240, 9.7.2018.


title: Case C-805/18 P: Appeal brought on 18 December 2018 by Saga Furs Oyj against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 12 October 2018 in Case T-313/18: Saga Furs v EUIPO — Support Design

text:
               29.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 255/15

      Appeal brought on 18 December 2018 by Saga Furs Oyj against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 12 October 2018 in Case T-313/18: Saga Furs v EUIPO — Support Design
      (Case C-805/18 P)
      (2019/C 255/20)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellant: Saga Furs Oyj (represented by: J. Kaulo, luvan saanut oikeudenkäyntiavustaja)

         Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Support Design AB
      By order of 12 June 2019 the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.


title: Case C-816/18 P: Appeal brought on 21 December 2018 by OY against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 16 October 2018 in Case T-605/16: OY v Commission

text:
               29.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 255/16

      Appeal brought on 21 December 2018 by OY against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 16 October 2018 in Case T-605/16: OY v Commission
      (Case C-816/18 P)
      (2019/C 255/21)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellant: OY (represented by: S. Rodrigues and N. Flandin, avocats)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
      By order of 12 June 2019 the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.


title: Case C-820/18 P: Appeal brought on 27 December 2018 by Linak A/S against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 18 October 2018 in Case T-368/17: Linak v EUIPO — ChangZhou Kaidi Electrical

text:
               29.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 255/16

      Appeal brought on 27 December 2018 by Linak A/S against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 18 October 2018 in Case T-368/17: Linak v EUIPO — ChangZhou Kaidi Electrical
      (Case C-820/18 P)
      (2019/C 255/22)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellant: Linak A/S (represented by: V. von Bomhard, Rechtsanwältin, and J. Fuhrmann, Rechtsanwalt)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office
      By order of 19 June 2019 the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.


title: Case C-822/18 P: Appeal brought on 27 December 2018 by Aldo Supermarkets against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 25 October 2018 in Case T-359/17: Aldo Supermarkets v EUIPO — Aldi Einkauf

text:
               29.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 255/17

      Appeal brought on 27 December 2018 by Aldo Supermarkets against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 25 October 2018 in Case T-359/17: Aldo Supermarkets v EUIPO — Aldi Einkauf
      (Case C-822/18 P)
      (2019/C 255/24)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellant: Aldo Supermarkets (represented by: M. Thewes, avocat)

         Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG
      By order of 4 June 2019 the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.


title: Case C-310/19 P: Appeal brought on 15 April 2019 by Boudewijn Schokker against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 8 February 2019 in Case T-817/17 Schokker v EASA

text:
               29.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 255/17

      Appeal brought on 15 April 2019 by Boudewijn Schokker against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 8 February 2019 in Case T-817/17 Schokker v EASA
      (Case C-310/19 P)
      (2019/C 255/25)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Appellant: Boudewijn Schokker (represented by: T. Martin and S. Orlandi, avocats)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)

         Form of order sought

      The appellant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  set aside the order of 8 February 2019 in Case T-817/17, Schokker v EASA;

                  —

                  refer the case back to the General Court; and

                  —

                  reserve the costs.

         Grounds of appeal and main arguments

      The appellant claims, first, that the General Court erred in law by dismissing the action on a ground that it had raised if its own motion and erroneously categorised as ‘manifest’. When it did so, the General Court infringed Article 126 of its Rules of Procedure and the appellant’s rights of defence.
      The appellant submits, second, that the General Court erred in law by concluding that a verification of the grounds for the withdrawal of the offer of employment at issue was irrelevant, as an offer of employment can, in any case, be withdrawn at any moment without being subject to any conditions.


title: Case C-331/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 23 April 2019 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v X

text:
               29.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 255/19

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 23 April 2019 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v X
      (Case C-331/19)
      (2019/C 255/27)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Referring court

      Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

         Other party: X

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Must the term ‘foodstuffs for human consumption’ used in point 1 of Annex III to the 2006 VAT Directive (1) be interpreted as covering, in accordance with Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, any substance or product, whether processed, partially processed or unprocessed, intended to be, or reasonably expected to be ingested by humans?
                  If this question is answered in the negative, how must that term then be defined?

                  2.

                  If edible or potable products cannot be regarded as foodstuffs for human consumption, on the basis of which criteria must it then be assessed whether such products can be regarded as products normally used to supplement foodstuffs or as a substitute for foodstuffs?

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

         (2)  Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (OJ 2002 L 31, p. 1).


title: Case C-339/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (Romania) lodged on 25 April 2019 — SC Romenergo SA and Aris Capital SA v Autoritatea de Supraveghere Financiară

text:
               29.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 255/19

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (Romania) lodged on 25 April 2019 — SC Romenergo SA and Aris Capital SA v Autoritatea de Supraveghere Financiară
      (Case C-339/19)
      (2019/C 255/28)
      Language of the case: Romanian

         Referring court

      Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellants: SC Romenergo SA and Aris Capital SA

         Respondent: Autoritatea de Supraveghere Financiară

         Question referred

      Must Article 63 et seq. TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 2(2) of Directive 2004/25/EC (1) and Article 87 of Directive 2001/34/EC, (2) be interpreted as precluding a national legislative framework (in the present case Article 2(3)(j) of CNVM Regulation No 1/2006) which establishes a legal presumption of concerted practice in respect of holdings in companies whose shares are admitted to trading on a regulated market and which are treated as alternative investment funds (known as ‘financial investment companies’) with regard to:

                  1.

                  persons who have carried out or who are carrying out economic transactions together, whether related or unrelated to the capital market, and

                  2.

                  persons who, in carrying out economic transactions, use financial resources which have the same origin or which originate from different entities which are involved persons?

         (1)  Directive 2004/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on takeover bids (OJ 2004 L 142, p. 12).

         (2)  Directive 2001/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 May 2001 on the admission of securities to official stock exchange listing and on information to be published on those securities (OJ 2001 L 184, p. 1).


title: Case C-341/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 30 April 2019 — MH Müller Handels GmbH v MJ

text:
               29.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 255/20

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 30 April 2019 — MH Müller Handels GmbH v MJ
      (Case C-341/19)
      (2019/C 255/29)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Bundesarbeitsgericht

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant on a point of law: MH Müller Handels GmbH

         Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: MJ

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Can established indirect unequal treatment on grounds of religion within the meaning of Article 2(2)(b) of Directive 2000/78/EC, (1) resulting from an internal rule of a private undertaking, be justifiable only if, according to that rule, it is prohibited to wear any visible sign of religious, political or other philosophical beliefs, and not only such signs as are prominent and large-scale?

                  2.

                  If Question 1 is answered in the negative:

                              (a)

                              Is Article 2(2)(b) of Directive 2000/78/EC to be interpreted as meaning that the rights derived from Article 10 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and from Article 9 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms may be taken into account in the examination of whether established indirect unequal treatment on grounds of religion is justifiable on the basis of an internal rule of a private undertaking which prohibits the wearing of prominent, large-scale signs of religious, political or other philosophical beliefs?

                              (b)

                              Is Article 2(2)(b) of Directive 2000/78/EC to be interpreted as meaning that national rules of constitutional status which protect freedom of religion may be taken into account as more favourable provisions within the meaning of Article 8(1) of Directive 2000/78/EC in the examination of whether established indirect unequal treatment on grounds of religion is justifiable on the basis of an internal rule of a private undertaking which prohibits the wearing of prominent, large-scale signs of religious, political or other philosophical beliefs?

                  3.

                  If Questions 2(a) and 2(b) are answered in the negative:

                              In the examination of an instruction based on an internal rule of a private undertaking which prohibits the wearing of prominent, large-scale signs of religious, political or other philosophical beliefs, must national rules of constitutional status which protect freedom of religion be set aside because of primary EU law, even if primary EU law, such as, for example, Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, recognises national laws and practices?

         (1)  Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16).


title: Case C-345/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 16 April 2019 — EUflight.de GmbH v Eurowings GmbH

text:
               29.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 255/21

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 16 April 2019 — EUflight.de GmbH v Eurowings GmbH
      (Case C-345/19)
      (2019/C 255/30)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Amtsgericht Düsseldorf

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: EUflight.de GmbH

         Defendant: Eurowings GmbH

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Are the provisions of Articles 4, 5, 6 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that passengers who are transported to their final destination via the booked flight over an hour before the planned time of departure obtain compensation, by application by analogy of Article 7 of that regulation?

                  2.

                  Can that compensation be reduced according to flight distance pursuant to Article 7(2) if the time of arrival precedes the periods of delayed arrival specified therein, or even the scheduled time of arrival?

                  3.

                  Is the possibility of a reduction excluded if the time of departure precedes the scheduled time of departure by the same amount of time provided for by the delay limits in Article 7(2) (that is, more than two, three or four hours)?

         (1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.)


title: Case C-353/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 6 May 2019 — Interseroh Dienstleistungs GmbH v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen

text:
               29.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 255/22

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 6 May 2019 — Interseroh Dienstleistungs GmbH v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen
      (Case C-353/19)
      (2019/C 255/31)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Verwaltungsgericht Köln

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Interseroh Dienstleistungs GmbH

         Defendant: Land Nordrhein-Westfalen

         Questions referred

                  1.

                              (a)

                              Is Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste, (1) in particular Annex III in conjunction with entry B 3020 of Annex IX to the Basel Convention, (2) to be interpreted as meaning that the indents contained in that entry are various single entries for the purposes of Regulation No 1013/2006?

                              (b)

                              If Question 1(a) is answered in the negative:

                                          Does entry B 3020 cover mixed paper and paperboard waste, which — like the waste at issue in the main proceedings — in addition to lightweight paper, paperboard and cardboard packaging, also contains liquid packaging board made of laminated paperboard?

                  2.

                  If Question 1(b) is answered in the affirmative:

                              (a)

                              Is entry B 3020 or the fourth indent thereof to be interpreted as meaning that it requires absolute freedom from foreign material, in the sense that the classification of waste under that entry is precluded if the waste — regardless of its volume and potential danger — contains materials other than waste and scrap of paper or paperboard (foreign materials)?

                              (b)

                              If Question 2(a) is answered in the negative:

                                          Can a proportion of foreign material in waste, in particular on account of its volume, also preclude classification under entry B 3020 or the fourth indent thereof, if the conditions of the so-called chapeau of Annex III to Regulation 1013/2006 have not been met, that is to say, the waste is contaminated by other materials to an extent which does not increase the risks associated with the waste sufficiently to render it appropriate for submission to the procedure of prior written notification and consent, when taking into account the hazardous characteristics listed in Annex III to Directive 2008/98/EC, (3) and does not prevent the recovery of the waste in an environmentally sound manner?

                  3.

                  If Question 1(b) is answered in the negative:

                              (a)

                              Is point 3(g) of Annex IIIA to Regulation No 1013/2006 to be interpreted as meaning that it requires absolute freedom from foreign material, in the sense that the classification of a mixture of waste under that entry is precluded if the mixture — regardless of its volume and potential danger — contains waste other than the waste referred to in the first three indents of entry B 3020 (foreign materials)?

                              (b)

                              If Question 3(a) is answered in the negative:

                                          Can foreign materials which, in any event, do not preclude classification under point 3(g) of Annex IIIA to Regulation No 1013/2006, also be waste which, viewed in isolation, would be classified under the fourth indent of entry B 3020?

         (1)  OJ 2006 L 190, p. 1.

         (2)  Basel Convention on the control of transboundary movements of hazardous wastes and their disposal of 22 March 1989

         (3)  Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives; OJ 2008 L 312, p. 3.


title: Case C-366/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 8 May 2019 — ‘BOSOLAR’ EOOD v ‘CHEZ ELEKTRO BULGARIA’ AD

text:
               29.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 255/23

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 8 May 2019 — ‘BOSOLAR’ EOOD v ‘CHEZ ELEKTRO BULGARIA’ AD
      (Case C-366/19)
      (2019/C 255/32)
      Language of the case: Bulgarian

         Referring court

      Sofiyski rayonen sad

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant:‘BOSOLAR’ EOOD

         Defendant:‘CHEZ ELEKTRO BULGARIA’ AD

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Is Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which governs the right to have the freedom to conduct a business in the EU legal order, to be interpreted as meaning that it precludes a national provision such as Paragraph 18 of the Prehodni i zaklyuchitelni razporedbi na Zakona za izmenenie i dopalnenie na zakona za energetikata (Transitional and final provisions of the Law amending and supplementing the Law on energy, ‘the PZR ZIDZE’), pursuant to which, despite the fact that an agreement has been entered into and a contractual relationship exists — aspects that are subject to special provisions of the applicable law — one of the fundamental elements of the agreement (the price) is changed in favour of one of the contracting parties by legislative act?

                  2.

                  Is the principle of legal certainty to be interpreted as meaning that it precludes the redefinition of legal relationships that have already been established between private legal entities or between the State and private legal entities on the basis of special provisions if such redefinition has an adverse effect on the legitimate expectations of the legal entities governed by private law and rights already acquired by them?

                  3.

                  Having regard to the judgment of the Court of Justice of 10 September 2009, Plantanol (C-201/08, EU:C:2009:539), is the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, as a fundamental principle of EU law, to be interpreted as meaning that it precludes a Member State from changing the applicable legal regime for the generation of electricity from renewable sources without a sufficient guarantee of predictability by prematurely withdrawing measures provided for by law which are aimed at promoting the generation of electricity from renewable sources and are linked to long-term power purchase agreements, contrary to the conditions under which private actors have made investments in the generation of electricity from renewable sources and entered into long-term power purchase agreements with State-regulated electricity suppliers?

                  4.

                  Having regard to recitals 8 and 14 in the preamble to the directive, are Articles 3 and 4 of Directive 2009/28/EC (1) on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources to be interpreted as meaning that they oblige Member States to guarantee legal certainty for investors in the area of generation of electricity from renewable sources, including solar energy, by means of national measures for implementing the directive?
                  If that question is answered in the affirmative: Is a national provision such as Paragraph 18 PZR ZIDZE, which significantly changes the preferential conditions for the purchase of electricity from renewable sources, even for long-term agreements which have already been entered into for the purchase of electricity from such sources in accordance with the originally adopted national measures for implementing the directive, permissible pursuant to Articles 3 and 4 in conjunction with recitals 8 and 14 of Directive 2009/28?

                  5.

                  How is the term ‘Member State’ to be interpreted for the purposes of applying EU law at a national level? Having regard to the judgment of the Court of Justice of 12 July 1990, Foster and Others (C-188/89, EU:C:1990:313) and the subsequent judgments of the Court of Justice in that area of case-law, does this term also cover the providers of a service of general economic interest (electricity supply), such as the defendant company in the pending court proceedings, which have been made responsible for providing that service under conditions governed by law pursuant to a measure adopted by a State authority and under the supervision of that authority?

         (1)  Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2009 L 140, p. 16).