201808030322050142018/C 294/165122017CJC29420180820EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180628121321Case C-512/17: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy Poznań-Stare Miasto w Poznaniu — Poland) — proceedings brought by HR (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and in the matters of parental responsibility — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Article 8(1) — Place of habitual residence of the child — Infant — Decisive circumstances for establishing that place of habitual residence)
 ---documentbreak--- C2942018EN1210120180628EN0016121132Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy Poznań-Stare Miasto w Poznaniu — Poland) — proceedings brought by HR
   (Case C-512/17) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and in the matters of parental responsibility — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Article 8(1) — Place of habitual residence of the child — Infant — Decisive circumstances for establishing that place of habitual residence)’2018/C 294/16Language of the case: Polish
      Referring court

   Sąd Rejonowy Poznań-Stare Miasto w Poznaniu

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: HR

      with the participation of: KO and Prokuratura Rejonowa Poznań Stare Miasto w Poznaniu

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 8(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, must be interpreted as meaning that a child’s place of habitual residence for the purpose of that regulation is the place which, in practice, is the centre of that child’s life. It is for the national court to determine, on the basis of a consistent body of evidence, where that centre was located at the time the application concerning parental responsibility over the child was submitted. In that regard, in a case such as that in the main proceedings, having regard to the facts established by that court, the following, taken together, are decisive factors:

            —

            the fact that, from its birth until its parents’ separation, the child generally lived with those parents in a specific place;

            —

            the fact that the parent who, in practice, has had custody of the child since the couple’s separation continues to stay in that place with the child on a daily basis and is employed there under an employment contract of indefinite duration; and

            —

            the fact that the child has regular contact there with its other parent, who is still resident in that place.

      By contrast, in a case such as that in the main proceedings, the following cannot be regarded as decisive:

            —

            the stays which the parent who, in practice, has custody of the child has spent in the past with that child in the territory of that parent’s Member State of origin in the context of leave periods or holidays;

            —

            the origins of the parent in question, the cultural ties which the child has with that Member State as a result, and the parent’s relationships with family residing in that Member State; and

            —

            any intention the parent has of settling in that Member State with the child in the future.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 412, 4.12.2017.


title: Case T-444/14: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Furukawa Electric v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for power cables — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Single and continuous infringement — Proof of the infringement — Duration of participation — Calculation of the fine — Gravity of the infringement — Unlimited jurisdiction)

text:
               17.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/35

      Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Furukawa Electric v Commission
      (Case T-444/14) (1)

      ((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for power cables - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Single and continuous infringement - Proof of the infringement - Duration of participation - Calculation of the fine - Gravity of the infringement - Unlimited jurisdiction))
      (2018/C 328/46)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Furukawa Electric Co. Ltd (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by C. Pouncey, A. Luke and L. Geary, Solicitors)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by A. Biolan, C. Giolito and H. van Vliet, acting as Agents, and by M. Johansson, lawyer)

         Intervener in support of the applicant: Viscas Corp. (Tokyo) (represented by J.-F. Bellis, lawyer)

         Re:

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

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Furukawa Electric Co. Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Commission;

                  3.

                  Orders Viscas Corp. to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.


title: Case C-241/18: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Napoli — Italy) — easyJet Airline Co. Ltd v Regione Campania (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 53(2) and 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Insufficient information regarding the factual and legal context of the dispute in the main proceedings and lack of grounds justifying why an answer to the questions referred is necessary — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               17.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/24

      Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Napoli — Italy) — easyJet Airline Co. Ltd v Regione Campania
      (Case C-241/18) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 53(2) and 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Insufficient information regarding the factual and legal context of the dispute in the main proceedings and lack of grounds justifying why an answer to the questions referred is necessary - Manifest inadmissibility))
      (2018/C 328/31)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Commissione tributaria provinciale di Napoli

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: easyJet Airline Co. Ltd

         Defendant: Regione Campania

         Operative part of the order

      The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Napoli (Provincial Tax Court, Naples, Italy), by decision of 5 March 2018, is manifestly inadmissible.

         (1)  OJ C 240, 9.7.2018.


title: Case T-9/17: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — RI v Council (Civil service — Officials — Invalidity pension — Fifth paragraph of Article 78 of the Staff Regulations — Refusal to recognise the invalidity as arising from an occupational disease — Incorrect view of the concept of occupational disease — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               17.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/45

      Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — RI v Council
      (Case T-9/17) (1)

      ((Civil service - Officials - Invalidity pension - Fifth paragraph of Article 78 of the Staff Regulations - Refusal to recognise the invalidity as arising from an occupational disease - Incorrect view of the concept of occupational disease - Obligation to state reasons))
      (2018/C 328/61)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: RI (represented by: T. Bontinck, A. Guillerme and M. Forgeois, lawyers)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and R. Meyer, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the Council of 8 February 2016 refusing to recognise the applicant’s invalidity as arising from an occupational disease under the fifth paragraph of Article 78 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls the decision of the Council of the European Union of 8 February 2016 refusing to recognise RI’s invalidity as arising from an occupational disease under the fifth paragraph of Article 78 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union;

                  2.

                  Orders the Council to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 70, 6.3.2017.


title: Case C-340/18: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 24 May 2018 — Criminal proceedings against EK, AH and CX

text:
               17.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/25

      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 24 May 2018 — Criminal proceedings against EK, AH and CX
      (Case C-340/18)
      (2018/C 328/32)
      Language of the case: Bulgarian

         Referring court

      Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

         Parties to the main proceedings

      EK, AH and CX
      By order of the Court of 3 July 2018, the case was removed from the register of the Court of Justice.


title: Case T-445/14: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — ABB v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for power cables — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Single and continuous infringement — Evidence of the infringement — Products concerned — Public distancing — Duration of participation — Equal treatment)

text:
               17.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/35

      Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — ABB v Commission
      (Case T-445/14) (1)

      ((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for power cables - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Single and continuous infringement - Evidence of the infringement - Products concerned - Public distancing - Duration of participation - Equal treatment))
      (2018/C 328/47)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicants: ABB Ltd (Zürich, Switzerland) and ABB AB (Västerås, Sweden) (represented by: I. Vandenborre and S. Dionnet, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Giolito, H. van Vliet and J. Norris-Usher, acting as Agents, and by A. Bodnar, Barrister)

         Re:

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

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders ABB Ltd and ABB AB to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.


title: Case C-129/17: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel — Belgium) — Mitsubishi Shoji Kaisha Ltd, Mitsubishi Caterpillar Forklift Europe BV v Duma Forklifts NV, G.S. International BVBA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — EU trade mark — Directive 2008/95/EC — Article 5 — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 9 — Trade mark proprietor entitled to oppose removal by a third party of all the signs identical to that trade mark and the affixing of new signs on goods identical to those for which the trade mark has been registered with a view to importing or placing them on the market in the European Economic Area (EEA))

text:
               17.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/14

      Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel — Belgium) — Mitsubishi Shoji Kaisha Ltd, Mitsubishi Caterpillar Forklift Europe BV v Duma Forklifts NV, G.S. International BVBA
      (Case C-129/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - EU trade mark - Directive 2008/95/EC - Article 5 - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 9 - Trade mark proprietor entitled to oppose removal by a third party of all the signs identical to that trade mark and the affixing of new signs on goods identical to those for which the trade mark has been registered with a view to importing or placing them on the market in the European Economic Area (EEA)))
      (2018/C 328/16)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Referring court

      Hof van beroep te Brussel

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellants: Mitsubishi Shoji Kaisha Ltd, Mitsubishi Caterpillar Forklift Europe BV

         Respondents: Duma Forklifts NV, G.S. International BVBA

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 5 of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks and Article 9 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the European Union trade mark must be interpreted as meaning that the proprietor of a mark is entitled to oppose a third party, without its consent, removing all the signs identical to that mark and affixing other signs on products placed in the customs warehouse, as in the main proceedings, with a view to importing them or trading them in the EEA where they have never yet been marketed.

         (1)  OJ C 161, 22.5.2017.


title: Case T-41/17: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Lotte v EUIPO — Nestlé Unternehmungen Deutschland (Representation of a koala bear) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark representing koalas — Earlier national three-dimensional mark KOALA-BÄREN Schöller lustige Gebäckfiguren — Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark — Power to alter decisions)

text:
               17.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/46

      Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Lotte v EUIPO — Nestlé Unternehmungen Deutschland (Representation of a koala bear)
      (Case T-41/17) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark representing koalas - Earlier national three-dimensional mark KOALA-BÄREN Schöller lustige Gebäckfiguren - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark - Power to alter decisions))
      (2018/C 328/62)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Lotte Co. Ltd (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: M. Knitter, lawyer)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Nestlé Unternehmungen Deutschland GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: A. Jaeger-Lenz, S. Cobet-Nüse and C. Elkemann, lawyers)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 October 2016 (Case R 0250/2016-5), concerning opposition proceedings between Nestlé Schöller GmbH & Co. KG and Lotte.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 28 October 2016 (Case R 0250/2016-5) in so far as, in that decision, the Board of Appeal upheld the opposition for ‘pastries filled with chocolate cream; chocolate; confectionery products; pastry; cookies; crackers; edible ices; pastry and confectionery’ in Class 30;

                  2.

                  Rejects the opposition brought by Nestlé Schöller GmbH & Co. KG, legal predecessor of Nestlé Unternehmungen Deutschland GmbH, for ‘pastries filled with chocolate cream; chocolate; confectionery products; pastry; cookies; crackers; edible ices; pastry and confectionery’ in Class 30;

                  3.

                  Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Lotte Co Ltd for the purposes of the proceedings before the General Court;

                  4.

                  Orders Nestlé Unternehmungen Deutschland to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 95, 27.3.2017.


title: Case C-360/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 4 June 2018 — Cargill Deutschland GmbH v Hauptzollamt Krefeld

text:
               17.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/25

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 4 June 2018 — Cargill Deutschland GmbH v Hauptzollamt Krefeld
      (Case C-360/18)
      (2018/C 328/33)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Cargill Deutschland GmbH

         Defendant: Hauptzollamt Krefeld

         Question referred

      Is the reimbursement of production levies in the sugar sector — for which, under Council Regulation (EU) No 1360/2013 of 2 December 2013 fixing the production levies in the sugar sector for the 2001/2002, 2002/2003, 2003/2004, 2004/2005 and 2005/2006 marketing years, the coefficient required for calculating the additional levy for the 2001/2002 and 2004/2005 marketing years and the amount to be paid by sugar manufacturers to beet sellers in respect of the difference between the maximum levy and the levy to be charged for the 2002/2003, 2003/2004 and 2005/2006 marketing years, (1) different calculations to those used previously are to be made — to be carried out, in the light of the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, in accordance with national law and in particular in application of the limitation period set out thereunder?

         (1)  OJ 2013 L 343, p. 2.


title: Case C-123/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 July 2018 — Orange Polska SA v European Commission, Polska Izba Informatyki i Telekomunikacji, European Competitive Telecommunications Association AISBL (ECTA), formerly the European Competitive Telecommunications Association (Appeal — Competition — Article 102 TFEU — Abuse of dominant position — Polish wholesale market for fixed broadband internet access — Refusal to give access to the network and to supply wholesale products — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Article 7(1) — Article 23(2)(a) — Legitimate interest in finding an infringement which has come to an end — Calculation of the fine — 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003 — Gravity — Mitigating circumstances — Investments made by the infringing undertaking — Review of legality — Review exercising powers of unlimited jurisdiction — Substitution of grounds)

text:
               17.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/2

      Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 July 2018 — Orange Polska SA v European Commission, Polska Izba Informatyki i Telekomunikacji, European Competitive Telecommunications Association AISBL (ECTA), formerly the European Competitive Telecommunications Association
      (Case C-123/16 P) (1)

      ((Appeal - Competition - Article 102 TFEU - Abuse of dominant position - Polish wholesale market for fixed broadband internet access - Refusal to give access to the network and to supply wholesale products - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 7(1) - Article 23(2)(a) - Legitimate interest in finding an infringement which has come to an end - Calculation of the fine - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003 - Gravity - Mitigating circumstances - Investments made by the infringing undertaking - Review of legality - Review exercising powers of unlimited jurisdiction - Substitution of grounds))
      (2018/C 328/02)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellants: Orange Polska SA (represented by: S. Hautbourg, avocat, P. Paśnik and M. Modzelewska de Raad, adwokaci, A. Howard, Barrister, and D. Beard QC,)

         Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Szczodrowski, L. Malferrari and E. Gippini Fournier, acting as Agents), Polska Izba Informatyki i Telekomunikacji, (represented by P. Litwiński, adwokat), European Competitive Telecommunications Association AISBL (ECTA), formerly the European Competitive Telecommunications Association, (represented by G.I. Moir and J. MacKenzie, Solicitors)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the appeal;

                  2.

                  Orders Orange Polska SA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

                  3.

                  Orders Polska Izba Informatyki i Telekomunikacji and the European Competitive Telecommunications Association AISBL (ECTA) to bear their own costs

         (1)  OJ C 191, 30.5.2016.


title: Case C-139/17 P: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 25 July 2018 — QuaMa Quality Management GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Microchip Technology, Inc. (Appeal — EU trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — Opposition proceedings — Application for the word mark medialbo — Earlier mark MediaLB — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Notice of opposition filed by a person who is not the proprietor of the earlier mark — No formal application for registration of the transfer of the earlier mark within the opposition period — Inadmissibility)

text:
               17.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/15

      Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 25 July 2018 — QuaMa Quality Management GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Microchip Technology, Inc.
      (Case C-139/17 P) (1)

      ((Appeal - EU trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - Opposition proceedings - Application for the word mark medialbo - Earlier mark MediaLB - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Notice of opposition filed by a person who is not the proprietor of the earlier mark - No formal application for registration of the transfer of the earlier mark within the opposition period - Inadmissibility))
      (2018/C 328/17)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Appellant: QuaMa Quality Management GmbH (represented by: C. Russ, Rechtsanwalt)

         Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: D. Botis and M. Fischer, acting as Agents), Microchip Technology, Inc. (represented by: C. Bergmann, Rechtsanwalt)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the appeal;

                  2.

                  Orders QuaMa Quality Management GmbH to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 357, 23.10.2017.


title: Case T-514/15: Order of the General Court of 10 July 2018 — Izba Gospodarcza Producentów i Operatorów Urządzeń Rozrywkowych v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Request for access to detailed opinions issued in the course of a notification procedure under Directive 98/34/EC — Documents relating to an infringement procedure — Refusal to grant access — Disclosure after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               17.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/47

      Order of the General Court of 10 July 2018 — Izba Gospodarcza Producentów i Operatorów Urządzeń Rozrywkowych v Commission
      (Case T-514/15) (1)

      ((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Request for access to detailed opinions issued in the course of a notification procedure under Directive 98/34/EC - Documents relating to an infringement procedure - Refusal to grant access - Disclosure after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate))
      (2018/C 328/63)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Izba Gospodarcza Producentów i Operatorów Urządzeń Rozrywkowych (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by P. Hoffman, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents)

         Intervener in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by C. Meyer-Seitz, A. Falk, U. Persson, N. Otte Widgren, E. Karlsson and L. Swedenborg, acting as Agents)

         Intervener in support of the defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by B. Majczyna, M. Kamejsza-Kozłowska and B. Paziewska, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the Commission Decisions GESTDEM 2015/1291 of 12 June 2015 and of 17 July 2015 refusing to grant the applicant access to the detailed opinions delivered, respectively, by the Commission and the Republic of Malta in the course of notification procedure 2014/537/PL.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

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

                  2.

                  Izba Gospodarcza Producentów i Operatorów Urządzeń Rozrywkowych and the European Commission shall bear their own costs.

                  3.

                  The Kingdom of Sweden and the Republic of Poland shall bear their own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 371, 9.11.2015.


title: Case C-140/17: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Szef Krajowej Administracji Skarbowej v Gmina Ryjewo (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 167, 168 and 184 — Deduction of input tax — Adjustment — Immovable property acquired as capital goods — Initial allocation to an activity which does not confer entitlement to deduct input tax and subsequently also to an activity subject to VAT — Public body — Taxable-person status at the time of the taxable transaction)

text:
               17.9.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/15

      Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Szef Krajowej Administracji Skarbowej v Gmina Ryjewo
      (Case C-140/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 167, 168 and 184 - Deduction of input tax - Adjustment - Immovable property acquired as capital goods - Initial allocation to an activity which does not confer entitlement to deduct input tax and subsequently also to an activity subject to VAT - Public body - Taxable-person status at the time of the taxable transaction))
      (2018/C 328/18)
      Language of the case: Polish

         Referring court

      Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Szef Krajowej Administracji Skarbowej

         Defendant: Gmina Ryjewo

         Operative part of the judgment

      Articles 167, 168 and 184 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax and the principle of the neutrality of value added tax must be interpreted as not precluding a body governed by public law from being entitled to a right to adjustment of deductions of value added tax paid on immovable property acquired as capital goods in a situation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, where, at the time of the acquisition of those goods, first, they could, by their very nature, be used both for taxable activities and for non-taxable activities but were initially used for non-taxable activities, and second, that public body had not expressly stated its intention to use those goods for a taxable activity but had also not excluded the possibility that they might be used for such a purpose, so long as it follows from an assessment of all the factual circumstances, which it is for the referring court to carry out, that the condition laid down by Article 168 of Directive 2006/112, according to which the taxable person must have acted as a taxable person at the time when it made that acquisition, is satisfied.

         (1)  OJ C 202, 26.6.2017.


title: Case C-449/18 P: Appeal brought on 6 July 2018 by the European Union Intellectual Property Office against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 26 April 2018 in Case T-554/14 Messi Cuccittini v EUIPO — J.M.-E.V. e hijos

text:
               29.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/3

      Appeal brought on 6 July 2018 by the European Union Intellectual Property Office against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 26 April 2018 in Case T-554/14 Messi Cuccittini v EUIPO — J.M.-E.V. e hijos
      (Case C-449/18 P)
      (2018/C 392/06)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Appellant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas, acting as Agent)

         Other parties to the proceedings: Lionel Andrés Messi Cuccittini and J.M.-E.V. e hijos, S.R.L.

         Form of order sought

      The appellant submits that the Court should:

                  —

                  Set aside the judgment under appeal;

                  —

                  Order the applicant before the General Court to pay the costs.

         Grounds of appeal and main arguments

      EUIPO submits that the judgment under appeal ought to be set aside in so far as the General Court has infringed Article 8(1)(b) of European Trade Mark Regulation, on the following grounds:

                  —

                  The General Court has erred in law in examining the conceptual similarity between the signs, since it takes into account only the perception of a significant part of the relevant public and fails to establish the relevance of the remainder of the relevant public, for whom the conceptual difference between the marks fails to counteract their visual or phonetic similarity.

                  —

                  Accordingly, the General Court has erred in law by discounting the existence of a likelihood of confusion on the basis of the conceptual perception that a ‘significant part’ of the public has of the marks at issue, rather than assessing whether such a likelihood of confusion exists in a non-negligible part of the relevant public, as required by case-law.


title: Case T-68/15: Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2018 — HH Ferries and Others v Commission (State aid — Aid in favour of the Øresund road-rail fixed link — Public financing granted by the Swedish State and the Danish State to the Fixed Link infrastructure project across the Øresund — State guarantees — Tax aid — Decision not to raise any objection — Decision that there was no State aid — Action for annulment — Challengeable act — Admissibility — Failure to initiate the formal investigation procedure — Serious difficulties — Concept of ‘aid scheme’ — Aid to promote the execution of an important project of common European interest — Assessment of the aid element in a guarantee — Whether the aid contained in a guarantee is limited — Proportionality — Legitimate expectations)

text:
               29.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/20

      Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2018 — HH Ferries and Others v Commission
      (Case T-68/15) (1)

      ((State aid - Aid in favour of the Øresund road-rail fixed link - Public financing granted by the Swedish State and the Danish State to the Fixed Link infrastructure project across the Øresund - State guarantees - Tax aid - Decision not to raise any objection - Decision that there was no State aid - Action for annulment - Challengeable act - Admissibility - Failure to initiate the formal investigation procedure - Serious difficulties - Concept of ‘aid scheme’ - Aid to promote the execution of an important project of common European interest - Assessment of the aid element in a guarantee - Whether the aid contained in a guarantee is limited - Proportionality - Legitimate expectations))
      (2018/C 392/23)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicants: HH Ferries I/S, formerly Scandlines Øresund I/S (Helsingør, Denmark), HH Ferries Helsingor ApS (Helsingør), HH Ferries Helsingborg AB, formerly HH-Ferries Helsingborg AB (Helsingborg, Sweden) (represented by: M. Johansson, R. Azelius, P. Remnelid and L. Sandberg-Mørch, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, S. Noë, R. Sauer and L. Armati, acting as Agents,)

         Interveners in support of the defendants: Kingdom of Denmark (represented initially by: C. Thorning, and subsequently by J. Nymann-Lindegren, acting as Agents, and by R. Holdgaard, lawyer), Kingdom of Sweden (represented initially by: E. Karlsson, L. Swedenborg, A. Falk, C. Meyer-Seitz, U. Persson and N. Otte Widgren, and subsequently by A.Falk, C. Meyer-Seitz, L. Zettergren and H. Shev, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application brought under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 7358 final of 15 October 2014 not to classify certain measures as aid and not to raise any objection following the preliminary investigation procedure provided for in Article 108(3) TFEU to State aid SA.36558 (2014/NN) and SA.38371 (2014/NN) — Denmark, and SA.36662 (2014/NN) — Sweden, concerning the public financing of the Øresund Fixed Link road/rail infrastructure project (OJ 2014 C 418, p. 1 and OJ 2014 C 437, p. 1).

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls the decision C(2014) 7358 final of the European Commission of 15 October 2014 in so far as it decided not to raise any objection with respect to the tax aid relating to depreciation of assets and the carrying forward of losses granted to Øresundsbro Konsortiet by the Kingdom of Denmark and with respect to guarantees granted to Øresundsbro Konsortiet by the Kingdom of Denmark and the Kingdom of Sweden.

                  2.

                  Dismisses the action as to the remainder.

                  3.

                  Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by HH Ferries I/S, HH Ferries Helsingor ApS and HH Ferries Helsingborg AB.

                  4.

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

         (1)  OJ C 138, 27.4.2015.


title: Case T-715/14: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2018 –Rosneft and Others v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment — Rights of the defence and right to effective judicial protection — Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and Russia — Right to property — Equal treatment — Proportionality — Misuse of powers — Legal certainty)

text:
               29.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/13

      Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2018 –Rosneft and Others v Council
      (Case T-715/14) (1)

      ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment - Rights of the defence and right to effective judicial protection - Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and Russia - Right to property - Equal treatment - Proportionality - Misuse of powers - Legal certainty))
      (2018/C 392/16)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicants: PAO Rosneft Oil Company, formerly NK Rosneft OAO (Moscow, Russia), RN-Shelf-Arctic OOO (Moscow), AO RN-Shelf-Far East, formerly RN-Shelf-Dalniy Vostok ZAO (Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, Russia), RN-Exploration OOO (Moscow), Tagulskoe OOO (Krasnoyarsk, Russia) (represented by: initially T. Beazley QC, subsequently by L. Van den Hende, J. Charles, lawyers, M. Schonberg and K. Krissinel, Solicitors)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Boelaert and B. Driessen, acting as Agents)

         Interveners in support of the defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: initially C. Brodie, and subsequently by V. Kaye, and subsequently by S. Brandon, and subsequently by C. Crane, and finally by R. Fadoju, acting as Agents, and by C. Banner, Barrister), European Commission (represented by: L. Havas, T. Scharf and D. Gauci, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Article 1(2)(b) to (d) and Article 1(3) of, and Annex III to, Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 229, p. 13), as amended by Council Decision 2014/659/CFSP of 8 September 2014 (OJ 2014 L 271, p. 54), by Council Decision 2014/872/CFSP of 4 December 2014 (OJ 2014 L 349, p. 58), by Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/971 of 22 June 2015 (OJ 2015 L 157, p. 50), by Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/2431 of 21 December 2015 (OJ 2015 L 334, p. 22), by Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/1071 of 1 July 2016 (OJ 2016 L 178, p. 21), and by Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/2315 of 19 December 2016 (OJ 2016 L 345, p. 65), and also of Articles 3, 3a, Article 4(3) and (4), Annex II, Article 5(2)(b) to (d) and Article 5(3), Annex VI and Article 11 of Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 229, p. 1), as amended by Council Regulation (EU) No 960/2014 of 8 September 2014 (OJ 2014 L 271, p. 3), and by Council Regulation (EU) No 1290/2014 of 4 December 2014 (OJ 2014 L 349, p. 20).

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders PAO Rosneft Oil Company, RN-Shelf-Arctic OOO, AO RN-Shelf-Far East, RN-Exploration OOO and Tagulskoe OOO to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

                  3.

                  Orders the European Commission and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland each to bear their own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 431, 1.12.2014.


title: Case C-464/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil de Gerona (Spain) lodged on 17 July 2018 — ZX v Ryanair D.A.C.

text:
               29.10.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/4

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil de Gerona (Spain) lodged on 17 July 2018 — ZX v Ryanair D.A.C.
      (Case C-464/18)
      (2018/C 392/07)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Referring court

      Juzgado de lo Mercantil de Gerona

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: ZX

         Defendant: Ryanair D.A.C.

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Does the concept of implied prorogation of jurisdiction laid down in and governed by Article 26 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (1) require, in all respects, an autonomous interpretation common to all the Member States, which cannot, therefore, be made subject to limitations laid down in Member States’ rules on domestic jurisdiction?

                  2.

                  Is the concept of implied prorogation of jurisdiction laid down in and governed by Article 26 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 a ‘pure’ rule of international jurisdiction, which determines exclusively the courts of a particular Member State but leaves it to the procedural law of that Member State to specify the court with territorial jurisdiction or, on the other hand, is it a rule of both international and territorial jurisdiction?

                  3.

                  In the light of the facts of the case, can a situation involving a flight which is operated by an airline domiciled in another Member State, but which departs from or arrives in a Member State where that airline has a branch providing ancillary services to the airline but through which the tickets were not purchased, be deemed to constitute a dispute arising out of the operations of a branch, agency or other establishment, which is the basis for the connecting factor for the ground of jurisdiction laid down in Article 7(5) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012?

         (1)  Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1).


title: Case T-266/17: Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2018 — Kwizda Holding v EUIPO — Dermapharm (UROAKUT) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark UROAKUT — Earlier national and international figurative marks UroCys — Relative ground for refusal — Lack of likelihood of confusion — Power to amend decisions — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No (EC) 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

text:
               5.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/34

      Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2018 — Kwizda Holding v EUIPO — Dermapharm (UROAKUT)
      (Case T-266/17) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark UROAKUT - Earlier national and international figurative marks UroCys - Relative ground for refusal - Lack of likelihood of confusion - Power to amend decisions - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No (EC) 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
      (2018/C 399/46)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Kwizda Holding GmbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: L. Wiltschek, D. Plasser and K. Majchrzak, lawyers)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Dermapharm GmbH (Vienna) (represented by: H. Kunz-Hallstein and R. Kunz-Hallstein, lawyers)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 March 2017 (Case R 1221/2016-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Dermapharm and Kwizda Holding.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 7 March 2017 (Case R 1221/2016-4);

                  2.

                  Rejects the opposition brought by Dermapharm GmbH;

                  3.

                  Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and the costs incurred by Kwizda Holding GmbH, including the costs incurred before the Board of Appeal;

                  4.

                  Orders Dermapharm to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 202, 26.6.2017.


title: Case T-536/18: Action brought on 11 September 2018 — Société des produits Nestlé v EUIPO — European Food (fitness)

text:
               5.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/47

      Action brought on 11 September 2018 — Société des produits Nestlé v EUIPO — European Food (fitness)
      (Case T-536/18)
      (2018/C 399/62)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Société des produits Nestlé SA (Vevey, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Jaeger-Lenz, A. Lambrecht, C. Elkemann, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: European Food SA (Păntășești, Romania)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

         Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark fitness — European Union trade mark No 2 470 326

         Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 June 2018 in Case R 755/2018-2

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  dismiss the appeal against the Cancellation Division’s decision 5802 C of 18 October 2013;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 72(6) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) in conjunction with Article 59(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

                  —

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


title: Judgment of the Court of 14 June 2018 in Case E-16/17 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland (Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Regulation (EU) No 231/2013)

text:
               15.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 414/11

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      of 14 June 2018
      in Case E-16/17
      EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland

         (Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Regulation (EU) No 231/2013)

      (2018/C 414/13)
      In Case E-16/17, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland — APPLICATION for a declaration that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area by failing to make the Act referred to at point 31bba of Annex IX to that Agreement (Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 231/2013 of 19 December 2012 supplementing Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to exemptions, general operating conditions, depositaries, leverage, transparency and supervision), as adapted by Protocol 1 to the Agreement, part of its internal legal order, the Court, composed of Páll Hreinsson, President, Per Christiansen and Bernd Hammermann (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 14 June 2018, the operative part of which is as follows:
      The Court hereby:

                  1.

                  Declares that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area by failing to make the Act referred to at point 31bba of Annex IX to that Agreement (Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 231/2013 of 19 December 2012 supplementing Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to exemptions, general operating conditions, depositaries, leverage, transparency and supervision), as adapted to the Agreement under its Protocol 1, part of its internal legal order.

                  2.

                  Orders Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.


title: Case C-603/18 P: Appeal brought on 24 September 2018 by Dr. K. Chrysostomides & Co. LLC and others against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 13 July 2018 in Case T-680/13: Dr. K. Chrysostomides & Co. LLC and Others v Council of the European Union and Others

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/27

      Appeal brought on 24 September 2018 by Dr. K. Chrysostomides & Co. LLC and others against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 13 July 2018 in Case T-680/13: Dr. K. Chrysostomides & Co. LLC and Others v Council of the European Union and Others
      (Case C-603/18 P)
      (2018/C 427/35)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellants: Dr. K. Chrysostomides & Co. LLC and Others (represented by: P. Tridimas, Barrister)

         Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European Central Bank, Euro Group, represented by the Council of the European Union, European Union, represented by the European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The appellants claim that the Court should:

                  —

                  quash the decision of the General Court;

                  —

                  grant the orders sought by the applicants in the proceedings before the General Court;

                  —

                  order the respondents to pay the costs of this appeal and the proceedings before the General Court.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The appellants consider that the General Court erred in law by:

                  (a)

                  finding that the Euro Group did not require Cyprus to take the measures causing them loss or that those measures were not required by action attributable to the EU.

                  (b)

                  considering that the ECB press release of 21 March 2013 did not cause harm to the appellants;

                  (c)

                  holding that by certain other acts the respondents did not require Cyprus to continue to implement the harmful measures and/or did not require the adoption of the harmful measures introduced by the amendments made to the harmful decrees on 30 July 2013;

                  (d)

                  considering that not all of the harmful measures were required by Council Decision 2013/236 (1);

                  (e)

                  finding that there was no serious breach of the right to property, as protected by Article 17(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention for the Protection of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms; the principle of protection of legitimate expectations; and the principle of non-discrimination.

            The appellants argue that the harmful measures fail to satisfy the requirement that restrictions on the right to property must be provided by law and also the requirement of proportionality. They consider that the conduct of the respondents gave rise to a legitimate expectation that no bail-in measures would be taken imposing a ‘haircut’ on their assets. They consider that as depositors and/or shareholders in the Bank of Cyprus and Laiki suffered discrimination, inter alia, vis-à-vis depositors and shareholders respectively in banks in other Eurozone Member States who benefited from financial assistance similar to that granted to Cyprus.

         (1)  Council Decision of 25 April 2013 addressed to Cyprus on specific measures to restore financial stability and sustainable growth (OJ 2013, L 141, p. 32).


title: Case T-555/18: Action brought on 18 September 2018 — Medrobotics v EUIPO (See More. Reach More. Treat More.)

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/90

      Action brought on 18 September 2018 — Medrobotics v EUIPO (See More. Reach More. Treat More.)
      (Case T-555/18)
      (2018/C 427/118)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Medrobotics Corp. (Raynham, Massachusetts, United States) (represented by: B. Bittner and U. Heinrich, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark See More. Reach More. Treat More. — Application for registration No 17 205 055

         Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 July 2018 in Case R 463/2018-2

         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-12/17: Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2018 — Mellifera v Commission (Consumer protection — Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1056 — Implementing Regulation extending the approval period of the active substance ‘glyphosate’ — Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 — Request for internal review — Article 2(1)(g) and Article 10(1) of Regulation No 1367/2006 — Measure of individual scope — Aarhus Convention)

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/48

      Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2018 — Mellifera v Commission
      (Case T-12/17) (1)

      (Consumer protection - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1056 - Implementing Regulation extending the approval period of the active substance ‘glyphosate’ - Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 - Request for internal review - Article 2(1)(g) and Article 10(1) of Regulation No 1367/2006 - Measure of individual scope - Aarhus Convention)
      (2018/C 427/61)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Mellifera eV, Vereinigung für wesensgemäße Bienenhaltung (Rosenfeld, Germany) (represented by: A. Willand, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Gattinara and C. Hermes, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      APPLICATION based on Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision Ares(2016) 6306335 of 8 November 2016, rejecting the request for internal review based on Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ 2006 L 264, p. 13), of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1056 of 29 June 2016 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 as regards the extension of the approval period of the active substance ‘glyphosate’ (OJ 2016 L 173, p. 52).

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Mellifera eV, Vereinigung für wesensgemäße Bienenhaltung to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

         (1)  OJ C 63, 27.2.2017.


title: Case T-17/17: Judgment of the General Court of 4 October 2018 — Constantinescu v Parliament (Civil service — Officials — Education — Admission to childcare facilities — Decision to enrol a child at childcare facilities different from those at which the child was previously enrolled — Incorrect designation of the defendant in the application — Inadmissibility — Liability)

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/49

      Judgment of the General Court of 4 October 2018 — Constantinescu v Parliament
      (Case T-17/17) (1)

      (Civil service - Officials - Education - Admission to childcare facilities - Decision to enrol a child at childcare facilities different from those at which the child was previously enrolled - Incorrect designation of the defendant in the application - Inadmissibility - Liability)
      (2018/C 427/62)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Radu Constantinescu (Kreuzweiler, Germany) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Blot, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: E. Taneva and L. Deneys, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action based on Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of the Office for Infrastructure and Logistics in Luxembourg (OIL) enrolling the applicant’s child at the childcare facilities of the European School Luxembourg II — Bertrange/Mamer and, accordingly, refusing the child’s enrolment at the childcare facilities of the European School Luxembourg I — Kirchberg, as well as the decision of the European Parliament of 7 October 2016 rejecting the applicant’s complaint, and, second, compensation for the material and non-material harm allegedly suffered by the applicant.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders the European Parliament to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 70, 6.3.2017.


title: Case T-561/18: Action brought on 20 September 2018 — ITD and Danske Fragtmænd v Commission

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/90

      Action brought on 20 September 2018 — ITD and Danske Fragtmænd v Commission
      (Case T-561/18)
      (2018/C 427/119)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicants: ITD, Brancheorganisation for den danske vejgodstransport A/S (Padborg, Denmark) and Danske Fragtmænd A/S (Åbyhøj, Denmark) (represented by: L. Sandberg-Mørch, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicants claim that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul Commission Decision C(2018) 3169 final of 28 May 2018 in State aid case SA.47707 (2018/N) — State compensations granted to PostNord for the provision of the universal postal service — Denmark; (1)

                  —

                  order the Commission to bear the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of the action, the applicants rely on a single plea in law, alleging failure by the Commission to open the formal investigation procedure provided for in Article 108(2) TFEU, despite the serious difficulties arising in the assessment of the measures at issue. This plea based on two series of arguments relating to the length and circumstances of the preliminary investigation procedure as well as to the content of the contested decision.

                  —

                  As regards the content of the contested decision, the applicants claim, in particular, that: (i) the universal service obligation compensation is not compatible with the internal market; (ii) the State guarantees do not constitute existing aid; (iii) the VAT exemption is imputable to the State; (iv) the misallocation of costs involves the transfer of State resources and is imputable to the State; and (v) the capital injection of 23 February 2017 is imputable to the State and confers an economic advantage on Post Danmark.

         (1)  OJ 2018 C 360, p. 3.


title: Case C-470/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie (Belgium) lodged on 19 July 2018 — JM v Belgische Staat

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/5

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie (Belgium) lodged on 19 July 2018 — JM v Belgische Staat
      (Case C-470/18)
      (2018/C 427/08)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Referring court

      Hof van Cassatie

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: JM

         Defendant: Belgische Staat

         Question referred

      Should Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Human Rights of the European Union, in cases of value added tax, be interpreted as precluding in all circumstances the use of evidence obtained in violation of the right to respect for private life as guaranteed by Article 7 of the Charter, or does it leave room for a national regulation under which the court which has to decide whether such a piece of evidence can be used as the basis for a VAT assessment has to make an evaluation such as the one set out above under paragraph 4 of this judgment.


title: Case T-565/18: Action brought on 24 September 2018 — P. Krücken Organic v Commission

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/91

      Action brought on 24 September 2018 — P. Krücken Organic v Commission
      (Case T-565/18)
      (2018/C 427/120)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: P. Krücken Organic GmbH (Mannheim, Germany) (represented by: H. Schmidt, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay EUR 216 749,02 to the applicant plus default interest accruing from the date of the service of process at a rate of 8 percentage points per annum above the basic interest rate set by the European Central Bank;

                  —

                  order the defendant to make available to the applicant the documents produced in the course of ECOCERT SA’s activities inspecting documents when it carried out an inspection of the products from organic production of Erenhot Jinguyuan Grain and Oil Co. Ltd., 2051 Youyi Road North, Erenhot City, Xilingol League, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, People’s Republic of China, in particular the inspection reports and the associated evaluation letters from the years 2016, 2017 and 2018 relating to ECOCERT SA’s findings, assessments and decisions that formed the basis of the issuance of the certificate of inspection with the number 22904CN1700w13 of 19 September 2017, issued in accordance with Annex V to Regulation (EC) No 1[2]35/2008, for 490 960 kg of organic sesame cake and of the subsequent annulment of that certificate of inspection by ECOCERT SA;

                  —

                  order the defendant:
                  additionally to require, in turn, that the supervisory authorities for products from organic production to which the defendant entrusts the tasks associated with the EU supervision of organic production in third countries send to the relevant importer named in Field 11 of the certificate of inspection issued in accordance with Annex V to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1235/20[0]8, (1) in particular the applicant, the decisions of those authorities regarding the annulment, revocation or declaration of invalidity of the certificates of inspection issued to the relevant importer, in particular the applicant, and deal with any related administrative appeals and take a decision thereon; and
                  additionally to urge the supervisory authorities for products from organic production authorised by the defendant in third countries to make available to importers, in particular the applicant, the documents relating to the organic inspection procedure forming the basis of such decisions, in particular the inspection reports and evaluation letters, with, however, redaction of the parts that are subject to data protection in favour of third parties.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of the action, the applicant claims, inter alia, that the Commission has breached its obligation to monitor through suitable measures the activities of ECOCERT SA as a recognised supervising authority for products from organic production for the purposes of ensuring equivalence in China, and thereby to ensure satisfactory compliance with the conditions laid down by Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007. (2)

         (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008 of 8 December 2008 laying down detailed rules for implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 as regards the arrangements for imports of organic products from third countries (OJ 2008 L 334, p. 25).

         (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 of 28 June 2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 (OJ 2009 L 189, p. 1).


title: Case T-24/17: Judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2018 — LA Superquimica v EUIPO — D-Tack (D-TACK) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark D-TACK — Earlier national word mark TACK — Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark — Use under a different form — Opposition dismissed — Point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 15(1) and Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 18(1) and Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Rule 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/1995 (now Article 8(1) and (7) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625))

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/50

      Judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2018 — LA Superquimica v EUIPO — D-Tack (D-TACK)
      (Case T-24/17) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark D-TACK - Earlier national word mark TACK - Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark - Use under a different form - Opposition dismissed - Point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 15(1) and Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 18(1) and Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Rule 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/1995 (now Article 8(1) and (7) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625))
      (2018/C 427/63)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: LA Superquimica, SA (Barcelona (Spain)) (represented by: A. Canela Giménez, lawyer)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: D-Tack GmbH (Hüttlingen, Germany)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 November 2016 (Case R 1983/2015-4), relating to opposition proceedings between LA Superquimica and D-Tack.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders LA Superquimica, SA to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 86, 20.3.2017.


title: Case T-568/18: Action brought on 24 September 2018 — Local-e-motion v EUIPO — Volkswagen (WE)

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/92

      Action brought on 24 September 2018 — Local-e-motion v EUIPO — Volkswagen (WE)
      (Case T-568/18)
      (2018/C 427/121)
      Language in which the application was lodged: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Local-e-motion GmbH (Dorsten, Germany) (represented by: D. Sprenger, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Volkswagen AG (Wolfsburg, Germany)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Applicant for the mark at issue: Applicant

         Mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark WE with the colour indication ‘black, red and grey’ — Application for registration No 15 225 675

         Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 July 2018 in Case R 128/2018-4

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  amend the contested decision by rejecting the opposition;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay the costs.

         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-664/17: Order of the General Court of 18 September 2018 — eSlovensko v Commission (Action for annulment — Subsidies — Finding of irregularities — Commission decision imposing an administrative penalty — Exclusion from procurement procedures and from the award of grants financed by the general budget of the European Union for a period of two years — Registration in the early detection and exclusion system database — Challenge — Article 76(d) of the Rules of Procedure — Disregard of the procedural requirements — Inadmissibility)

text:
               26.11.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 427/71

      Order of the General Court of 18 September 2018 — eSlovensko v Commission
      (Case T-664/17) (1)

      (Action for annulment - Subsidies - Finding of irregularities - Commission decision imposing an administrative penalty - Exclusion from procurement procedures and from the award of grants financed by the general budget of the European Union for a period of two years - Registration in the early detection and exclusion system database - Challenge - Article 76(d) of the Rules of Procedure - Disregard of the procedural requirements - Inadmissibility)
      (2018/C 427/94)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: eSlovensko (Lučenec, Slovakia) (represented by: B. Fridrich, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Dintilhac and L. Flynn, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of the decision of the Commission of 21 June 2017, imposing the administrative penalty of exclusion of the applicant from procurement and grant award procedures financed from the general budget of the European Union for a period of 24 months and consequently registering it in the early detection and exclusion system database provided for in Article 108(1) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (OJ 2012 L 298, p. 1).

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

                  2.

                  eSlovensko shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.

         (1)  OJ C 424, 11.12.2017.


title: Case C-191/17: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Bundeskammer für Arbeiter und Angestellte v ING-DiBa Direktbank Austria Niederlassung der ING-DiBa AG (Directive 2007/64/EC — Payment services in the internal market — Concept of ‘payment account’ — Potential inclusion of a savings account enabling its user to make payments and withdrawals by way of a current account opened in his name)

text:
               3.12.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 436/10

      Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Bundeskammer für Arbeiter und Angestellte v ING-DiBa Direktbank Austria Niederlassung der ING-DiBa AG
      (Case C-191/17) (1)

      ((Directive 2007/64/EC - Payment services in the internal market - Concept of ‘payment account’ - Potential inclusion of a savings account enabling its user to make payments and withdrawals by way of a current account opened in his name))
      (2018/C 436/10)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Oberster Gerichtshof

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Bundeskammer für Arbeiter und Angestellte

         Defendant: ING-DiBa Direktbank Austria Niederlassung der ING-DiBa AG

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 4(14) of Directive 2007/64/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on payment services in the internal market amending Directives 97/7/EC, 2002/65/EC, 2005/60/EC and 2006/48/EC and repealing Directive 97/5/EC must be interpreted as meaning that a savings account which allows for sums deposited without notice and from which payment and withdrawal transactions may be made solely by means of a current account does not come within the concept of ‘payment account’.

         (1)  OJ C 239, 24.7.2017.


title: Case C-305/17: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresný súd Bratislava — Slovakia) — FENS spol. s r.o. v Slovenská republika — Úrad pre reguláciu sieťových odvetví (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Free movement of goods — Customs duties — Charges having equivalent effect — Levy on the transmission of electricity generated domestically and intended for export — Compatibility of such legislation with the principle of free movement of goods)

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/2

      Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresný súd Bratislava — Slovakia) — FENS spol. s r.o. v Slovenská republika — Úrad pre reguláciu sieťových odvetví
      (Case C-305/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Free movement of goods - Customs duties - Charges having equivalent effect - Levy on the transmission of electricity generated domestically and intended for export - Compatibility of such legislation with the principle of free movement of goods))
      (2019/C 44/02)
      Language of the case: Slovak

         Referring court

      Okresný súd Bratislava

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: FENS spol. s r.o.

         Defendant: Slovenská republika — Úrad pre reguláciu sieťových odvetví

         Operative part of the judgment

      Articles 28 TFEU and 30 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which provides for a pecuniary charge, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which is imposed on electricity exported to another Member State or to a third country only in the case where that electricity was generated within the national territory.

         (1)  OJ C 269, 14.8.2017.


title: Case C-378/17: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — Minister for Justice and Equality, Commissioner of An Garda Síochána v Workplace Relations Commission (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Equal treatment in employment — Directive 2000/78/EC — Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age — Recruitment of police officers — National body established by law in order to ensure enforcement of EU law in a particular area — Power to disapply national legislation that conflicts with EU law — Primacy of EU law)

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/3

      Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — Minister for Justice and Equality, Commissioner of An Garda Síochána v Workplace Relations Commission
      (Case C-378/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Equal treatment in employment - Directive 2000/78/EC - Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age - Recruitment of police officers - National body established by law in order to ensure enforcement of EU law in a particular area - Power to disapply national legislation that conflicts with EU law - Primacy of EU law))
      (2019/C 44/03)
      Language of the case: English

         Referring court

      Supreme Court

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: Minister for Justice and Equality, Commissioner of An Garda Síochána

         Respondent: Workplace Relations Commission

         Operative part of the judgment

      EU law, in particular the principle of primacy of EU law, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which a national body established by law in order to ensure enforcement of EU law in a particular area lacks jurisdiction to decide to disapply a rule of national law that is contrary to EU law.

         (1)  OJ C 283, 28.8.2018.


title: Case C-480/17: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 6 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln — Germany) — Frank Montag v Finanzamt Köln-Mitte (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of establishment — Direct taxation — Income tax — Deductibility of contributions to an occupational pension scheme and to a private pension scheme — Exclusion of non-residents)

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/3

      Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 6 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln — Germany) — Frank Montag v Finanzamt Köln-Mitte
      (Case C-480/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of establishment - Direct taxation - Income tax - Deductibility of contributions to an occupational pension scheme and to a private pension scheme - Exclusion of non-residents))
      (2019/C 44/04)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Finanzgericht Köln

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Frank Montag

         Defendant: Finanzamt Köln-Mitte

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which a non-resident taxable person, subject, in that Member State, to income tax in the framework of limited tax liability, cannot deduct from the income tax basis of assessment the amount of compulsory contributions paid into an occupational pension scheme in due proportion to the share of the income taxable in that Member State if directly linked to the activity which generated that income, whereas a resident taxable person, subject to income tax in the framework of unlimited tax liability, can deduct such contributions from the income tax basis of assessment to the extent laid down by national law.
      Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which a non-resident taxable person, subject, in that Member State, to income tax in the framework of limited tax liability, cannot deduct from the income tax basis of assessment the amount of additional contributions paid into an occupational pension scheme or the amount of contributions paid into a private pension scheme, whereas a resident taxable person, subject to income tax in the framework of unlimited tax liability, can deduct such contributions from the income tax basis of assessment to the extent laid down by national law.

         (1)  OJ C 382, 13.11.2017.


title: Case C-629/17: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça — Portugal) — J. Portugal Ramos Vinhos SA v Adega Cooperativa de Borba CRL (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Intellectual property — Trade mark law — Directive 2008/95/EC — Article 3(1)(c) — Grounds for invalidity — Word marks which consist exclusively of signs or indications which may serve in trade to designate the characteristics of goods or services — Other characteristics of goods or services — Production facility for a product — Word mark composed of a sign designating wine products and of a geographical name, constituting a word element of the trade mark proprietor’s business name)

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/4

      Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça — Portugal) — J. Portugal Ramos Vinhos SA v Adega Cooperativa de Borba CRL
      (Case C-629/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual property - Trade mark law - Directive 2008/95/EC - Article 3(1)(c) - Grounds for invalidity - Word marks which consist exclusively of signs or indications which may serve in trade to designate the characteristics of goods or services - Other characteristics of goods or services - Production facility for a product - Word mark composed of a sign designating wine products and of a geographical name, constituting a word element of the trade mark proprietor’s business name))
      (2019/C 44/05)
      Language of the case: Portuguese

         Referring court

      Supremo Tribunal de Justiça

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: J. Portugal Ramos Vinhos SA

         Defendant: Adega Cooperativa de Borba CRL

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 3(1)(c) of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that the registration of a trade mark consisting of a word sign, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, designating wine products and including a geographical name, must be refused, where that sign contains, in particular, a term which is commonly used to designate facilities or sites in which those products are produced and is also one of the word elements of the business name of the legal entity seeking to register that trade mark.

         (1)  OJ C 32, 29.1.2018.


title: Case C-672/17: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) — Portugal) — Tratave — Tratamento de Águas Residuais do Ave SA v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Taxable amount — Reduction — Principle of fiscal neutrality)

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/5

      Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) — Portugal) — Tratave — Tratamento de Águas Residuais do Ave SA v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira
      (Case C-672/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Taxable amount - Reduction - Principle of fiscal neutrality))
      (2019/C 44/06)
      Language of the case: Portuguese

         Referring court

      Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD)

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Tratave — Tratamento de Águas Residuais do Ave SA

         Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

         Operative part of the judgment

      The principle of neutrality as well as Articles 90 and 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that the reduction of the taxable amount for value added tax (VAT), in the event of non-payment, cannot be made by the taxable person until it has given prior notice of its intention to cancel all or part of the VAT to the purchaser of goods or services, if that purchaser is a taxable person, for the purposes of correcting the deduction of VAT that the latter has made.

         (1)  OJ C 52, 12.2.2018.


title: Case C-675/17: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Ministero della Salute v Hannes Preindl (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Recognition of professional qualifications — Directive 2005/36/EC — Recognition of the evidence of formal qualifications obtained following periods of partially overlapping training — Host Member State’s powers of investigation)

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/5

      Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Ministero della Salute v Hannes Preindl
      (Case C-675/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Recognition of professional qualifications - Directive 2005/36/EC - Recognition of the evidence of formal qualifications obtained following periods of partially overlapping training - Host Member State’s powers of investigation))
      (2019/C 44/07)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Consiglio di Stato

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Ministero della Salute

         Defendant: Hannes Preindl

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Articles 21, 22 and 24 of Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications must be interpreted as obliging a Member State, whose legislation creates a requirement to pursue full-time training and a prohibition on being enrolled on two courses at the same time, automatically to recognise the evidence of formal qualifications issued by another Member State on the completion of partially concurrent training.

                  2.

                  Article 21 and Article 22(a) of Directive 2005/36 must be interpreted as precluding the host Member State from verifying compliance with the condition that the overall duration, level and quality of part-time training are not lower than those of continuous full-time training.

         (1)  OJ C 52, 12.2.2018.


title: Case C-92/18: Action brought on 7 February 2018 — French Republic v European Parliament

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/6

      Action brought on 7 February 2018 — French Republic v European Parliament
      (Case C-92/18)
      (2019/C 44/08)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: French Republic (represented by: F. Alabrune, D. Colas, E. de Moustier and B. Fodda, acting as Agents)

         Defendant: European Parliament

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the agenda of the plenary session of the European Parliament of Wednesday 29 November 2017 (document P8_OJ (2017) 11-29), in so far as it includes debates on the joint text on the draft general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2018, the agenda of the session of Thursday 30 November 2017 (document P8_OJ (2017) 11-30), in so far as it includes a vote followed by explanations of votes on the joint text on the draft general budget, the European Parliament legislative resolution of 30 November 2017 on the joint text on the draft general budget (document P8_TA (2017) 0458, P8_TA-PROV (2017) 0458 in its provisional version) and the act by which, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 314(9) TFEU, the President of the European Parliament declared that the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2018 had been definitively adopted;

                  —

                  maintain the effects of the act by which the President of the European Parliament declared that the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2018 had been definitively adopted until that budget is definitively adopted by an act in conformity with the Treaties within a reasonable period of time after the date of judgment;

                  —

                  order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      By its action, the French Government requests the annulment of four acts adopted by the European Parliament in the context of the exercise of its budgetary powers, during the additional plenary session which took place on 29 and 30 November in Brussels.
      The first and second acts which the French Government seeks to have annulled are agendas of sessions of the European Parliament of Wednesday 29 and Thursday 30 November 2017, in so far as they make provision respectively for plenary debates on the joint text on the draft general budget for the financial year 2018 and a vote followed by explanations of votes on that joint text on the draft general budget.
      The third contested act is the European Parliament legislative resolution of 30 November 2017 on the joint text on the draft general budget.
      Lastly, the French Government requests annulment of the act by which, in accordance with Article 314(9) TFEU, the President of the European Parliament declared that the general budget for the financial year 2018 had been definitively adopted. As is apparent in particular from the agenda of the session of the European Parliament of Thursday 30 November 2017, it concerns the declaration of the President of the European Parliament followed by the latter’s signature of the general budget, which took place following the vote on the legislative resolution on the joint text on the draft general budget.
      By its single plea in law, the French Government claims that the four contested acts should be annulled on the ground that they infringe Protocol No 6 annexed to the TEU and the TFEU and Protocol No 3 annexed to the ECSC Treaty, which relate to the location of the seats of the institutions and of certain bodies, agencies and departments of the European Union.
      It follows both from the protocols on the seat of the institutions and the case-law of the Court that the European Parliament may not exercise the budgetary powers conferred upon it by Article 314 TFEU during additional plenary sessions held in Brussels, but must exercise them during ordinary plenary sessions held in Strasbourg.
      However, in so far as the lawfulness of the contested act of the President of the European Parliament is disputed, not as a result of its purpose or contents, but solely because that act should have been adopted during an ordinary plenary session in Strasbourg, the need to ensure the continuity of the European public service together with important considerations of legal certainty justify, in the view of the French Government, the maintenance of the legal effects of that act until the adoption of a new act compatible with the treaties.


title: Case C-412/18 P: Appeal brought on 22 June 2018 by Anthony Andrew King against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 10 April 2018 in Case T-810/17: King v Commission

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/7

      Appeal brought on 22 June 2018 by Anthony Andrew King against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 10 April 2018 in Case T-810/17: King v Commission
      (Case C-412/18 P)
      (2019/C 44/09)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellant: Anthony Andrew King (represented by: P. McKenna, Solicitor)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
      By order of 22 November 2018 the Court of Justice (Seventh Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.


title: Case C-558/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Łodzi (Poland) lodged on 3 September 2018 — City of Łowicz v State Treasury — Governor of Łódź Province

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/8

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Łodzi (Poland) lodged on 3 September 2018 — City of Łowicz v State Treasury — Governor of Łódź Province
      (Case C-558/18)
      (2019/C 44/11)
      Language of the case: Polish

         Referring court

      Sąd Okręgowy w Łodzi

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: City of Łowicz

         Defendant: State Treasury — Governor of Łódź Province

         Question referred

      On a proper construction of the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union, does the resulting obligation for Member States to provide remedies sufficient to ensure effective legal protection in the fields covered by EU law preclude provisions which materially increase the risk of undermining the guarantee of independent disciplinary proceedings against judges in Poland through:

                  (1)

                  political influence on the conduct of disciplinary proceedings;

                  (2)

                  the emerging risk that the system of disciplinary measures will be used to politically control the content of judicial decisions; and

                  (3)

                  the possibility of evidence obtained by illegal means being used in disciplinary proceedings against judges?


title: Case C-563/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 5 September 2018 — Criminal proceedings against VX, WW and XV

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/9

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 5 September 2018 — Criminal proceedings against VX, WW and XV
      (Case C-563/18)
      (2019/C 44/12)
      Language of the case: Polish

         Referring court

      Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie

         Parties to the main proceedings

      VX, WW and XV

         Question referred

      On a proper construction of the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union, does the resulting obligation for Member States to provide remedies sufficient to ensure effective legal protection in the fields covered by EU law preclude provisions which remove the guarantee of independent disciplinary proceedings against judges in Poland by permitting disciplinary proceedings to be conducted under political influence, giving rise to a risk that the system of disciplinary measures will be used to politically control the content of judicial decisions?


title: Case C-585/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 20 September 2018 — A. K. v Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa

text:
               4.2.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/9

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 20 September 2018 — A. K. v Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa
      (Case C-585/18)
      (2019/C 44/13)
      Language of the case: Polish

         Referring court

      Sąd Najwyższy

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: A. K.

         Respondent: Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa (National Council of the Judiciary)

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  On a proper construction of the third subparagraph of Article 267 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 19(1) and Article 2 TEU and Article 47 of the [Charter of Fundamental Rights], is a newly-created chamber of a court of last instance of a Member State which has jurisdiction to hear an appeal by a national court judge and which is composed exclusively of judges selected by a national body tasked with safeguarding the independence of the courts (the National Council of the Judiciary), which, having regard to the systemic model for the way in which it is formed and the way in which it operates, is not guaranteed to be independent from the legislative and executive authorities, an independent court or tribunal within the meaning of EU law?

                  2.

                  If the answer to the first question is negative, should the third subparagraph of Article 267 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 19(1) and Article 2 TEU and Article 47 of the [Charter of Fundamental Rights], be interpreted as meaning that a chamber of a court of last instance of a Member State which does not have jurisdiction in the case but meets the requirements of EU law for a court seised with an appeal in an EU case should disregard the provisions of national legislation which preclude it from having jurisdiction in that case?