title: Case C-185/17: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 22 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna — Bulgaria) — Mitnitsa Varna v SAKSA ООD (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common Customs Tariff — Classification of goods — Harmonised European standard EN 590:2013 — Subheading 2710 19 43 of the Combined Nomenclature — Relevant criteria for the classification of goods as gas oil)

text:
               16.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/11

         Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 22 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna — Bulgaria) — Mitnitsa Varna v SAKSA ООD
   (Case C-185/17) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common Customs Tariff - Classification of goods - Harmonised European standard EN 590:2013 - Subheading 2710 19 43 of the Combined Nomenclature - Relevant criteria for the classification of goods as gas oil))
   (2018/C 134/15)
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Administrativen sad — Varna

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Mitnitsa Varna

      Respondent: SAKSA ООD

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Combined Nomenclature contained in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, in the version resulting from Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1101/2014 of 16 October 2014 must be interpreted as meaning that a mineral oil, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, may not, on account of its distillation characteristics, be classified as gas oil under subheading 2710 19 43 of that nomenclature, even when that oil meets the requirements referred to in harmonised standard EN 590:2013, in the version of the month of September 2013, relating to gas oil for arctic or severe winter climates.

      (1)  OJ C 213, 3.7.2017.


title: Case T-96/18: Action brought on 19 February 2018 — Cabell v EUIPO — Zorro Productions (ZORRO)

text:
               16.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/32

         Action brought on 19 February 2018 — Cabell v EUIPO — Zorro Productions (ZORRO)
   (Case T-96/18)
   (2018/C 134/46)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Robert W. Cabell (Renton, Washington, United States) (represented by: K. Bröcker, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Zorro Productions, Inc. (Berkeley, California, United States)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ZORRO — EU trade mark No 5 399 787

      Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 December 2017 in Case R 1637/2015-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               uphold the application for a declaration of partial invalidity of European Union trade mark registration No 5 399 787 for all the contested goods and services;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) in conjunction with Article 59(1)(a) of Regulation No 2017/1001.


title: Case T-66/18: Action brought on 29 January 2018 — Tsapakidou v Court of Justice

text:
               16.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/25

         Action brought on 29 January 2018 — Tsapakidou v Court of Justice
   (Case T-66/18)
   (2018/C 134/35)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Argyro Tsapakidou (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: E. Kleani, lawyer)

      Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Court of Justice of 23 November 2017 (reference 20173939) rejecting the applicant’s tender submitted in respect of the freelance translator contract notice 2017/S 002-001564 for the Greek language;

               —

               order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant maintains that the contested decision breaches the general principles of EU law, according to which administrative acts must be sufficiently justified and state the principles on which they are based. It fails to meet these criteria. The applicant argues, in particular, that the justification provided by the defendant was insufficient in light of Article 4.3.1. of the tender specifications. Moreover, the information provided to the applicant did not enable her to assess the validity of the result obtained in the test translation in question. She lacked information regarding the evaluation guidelines or criteria on the basis of which the contested decision was adopted.


title: Case C-41/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale della Campania (Italy) lodged on 22 January 2018 — Meca Srl v Comune di Napoli

text:
               23.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/27

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale della Campania (Italy) lodged on 22 January 2018 — Meca Srl v Comune di Napoli
   (Case C-41/18)
   (2018/C 142/36)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale della Campania

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Meca Srl

      Defendant: Comune di Napoli

      Question referred

      Do the Community principles of protection of legitimate expectations and of legal certainty, laid down in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), and the principles deriving therefrom, such as those of equal treatment, non-discrimination, proportionality and effectiveness, referred to in Directive 2014/24/EU, (1) and the provisions of Article 57(4)(c) and (g) of that Directive, preclude the application of national legislation, such as the Italian legislation founded on Article 80(5)(c) of Legislative Decree No 50/2016, according to which challenging before the courts significant deficiencies identified in the performance of a previous procurement procedure, which resulted in the early termination of a previous procurement contract, excludes any assessment by the procuring entity as to the reliability of the tenderer, until a final ruling has been issued in the civil proceedings, when the undertaking concerned has not demonstrated that it has adopted any ‘self-cleaning’ measures in order to remedy the breaches and avoid any repetition of them?

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


title: Case T-764/16: Judgment of the General Court of 28 February 2018 —Paulini v ECB (Civil service — ECB staff — Remuneration — Annual salary and bonus review — Lawfulness of the guidelines — Calculation method — Taking into account of sickness leave — Taking into account of activities of a staff representative — Principle of non-discrimination)

text:
               23.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/46

         Judgment of the General Court of 28 February 2018 —Paulini v ECB
   (Case T-764/16) (1)

   ((Civil service - ECB staff - Remuneration - Annual salary and bonus review - Lawfulness of the guidelines - Calculation method - Taking into account of sickness leave - Taking into account of activities of a staff representative - Principle of non-discrimination))
   (2018/C 142/61)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Jörn Paulini (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented initially by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, subsequently by: L. Levi and A. Tymen and finally by: L. Levi, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: F. von Lindeiner and D. Camilleri Podestà, acting as Agents, and B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action on the basis of Article 270 TFEU seeking, firstly, the annulment of the decision of the ECB, sent to the applicant on 15 December 2015 and amended on 10 February 2016, concerning the 2015 annual salary and bonus review and, secondly, compensation for the loss which the applicant allegedly suffered as a result of that decision.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Jörn Paulini to bear his own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Central Bank.

      (1)  OJ C 14, 16.1.2017.


title: Case C-54/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte (Italy) lodged on 29 January 2018 — Cooperativa Animazione Valdocco S.C.S. Impresa Sociale Onlus v Consorzio Intercomunale Servizi Sociali di Pinerolo, Azienda Sanitaria Locale To3 di Collegno e Pinerolo

text:
               23.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/31

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte (Italy) lodged on 29 January 2018 — Cooperativa Animazione Valdocco S.C.S. Impresa Sociale Onlus v Consorzio Intercomunale Servizi Sociali di Pinerolo, Azienda Sanitaria Locale To3 di Collegno e Pinerolo
   (Case C-54/18)
   (2018/C 142/41)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Cooperativa Animazione Valdocco S.C.S. Impresa Sociale Onlus

      Defendants: Consorzio Intercomunale Servizi Sociali di Pinerolo, Azienda Sanitaria Locale To3 di Collegno e Pinerolo

      Questions referred

               1.

               Do the European rules on the rights of defence, due process and effective substantive operation of the protection afforded, in particular, by Articles 6 and 13 of the ECHR, Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 1(1) and (2) of Directive 89/665/EEC (1) preclude a provision of national law, such as Article 120(2-bis) of the Codice del Processo amministrativo (Italian Code of Administrative Procedure), which requires an operator taking part in a tendering procedure to challenge the admission of/failure to exclude another entity, within a period of 30 days of the communication of the decision to admit/exclude participants?

               2.

               Do the European rules on the rights of defence, due process and effective substantive operation of the protection afforded, in particular, by Articles 6 and 13 of the ECHR, Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article (1) and (2) of Directive 89/665/CEE, preclude a provision of national law, such as Article 120(2-bis) of the Codice del Processo amministrativo (Italian Code of Administrative Procedure), which prevents an economic operator from claiming, upon conclusion of the procedure, even by cross-appeal, that the decision to admit other operators is unlawful, in particular the one awarded the contract or the applicant in the main action, if they had not previously challenged the decision to admit in the manner set out in the preceding question?

      (1)  Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33).


title: Case T-843/16: Judgment of the General Court of 28 February 2018 — dm-drogerie markt v EUIPO Digital Print Group O. Schimek (Foto Paradies) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark Foto Paradies — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

text:
               23.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/47

         Judgment of the General Court of 28 February 2018 — dm-drogerie markt v EUIPO Digital Print Group O. Schimek (Foto Paradies)
   (Case T-843/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark Foto Paradies - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
   (2018/C 142/62)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: dm-drogerie markt GmbH & Co. KG (Karlsruhe, Germany) (represented by: T. Strack and O. Bludovsky, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Digital Print Group O. Schimek GmbH (Nuremberg, Germany) (represented by: L. Petri and M. Gilch, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 September 2016 (R 1194/2015-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Digital Print Group O. Schimek and dm-drogerie markt.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders dm-drogerie markt GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 38, 6.2.2017.


title: Case T-121/18: Action brought on 20 February 2018 — Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v EUIPO (1000 PANORAMICZNYCH)

text:
               23.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/62

         Action brought on 20 February 2018 — Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v EUIPO (1000 PANORAMICZNYCH)
   (Case T-121/18)
   (2018/C 142/80)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o. o. (Częstochowa, Poland) (represented by: C. Rogula, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘1000 PANORAMICZNYCH’ — Application for registration No 15 299 671

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 December 2017 in Case R 2208/2016-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               amend the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal by upholding the applicant’s appeal and registering the trade mark ‘1000 PANORAMICZNYCH’ on the basis of the finding that the word sign ‘1000 PANORAMICZNYCH’ does not meet the conditions laid down in Article 7(1) of Regulation 2017/1001, in particular points (b) and (c) thereof, and there are therefore no grounds for refusing to register the trade mark;

         and/or

               —

               declare, in accordance with Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001, that the word sign ‘1000 PANORAMICZNYCH’ has acquired distinctive character through use (secondary distinctiveness), and there are therefore no grounds for refusing to register the trade mark, and in particular none of the conditions set out in Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) of that regulation apply;

         in the alternative

               —

               annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal and order the European Union Intellectual Property Office (‘EUIPO’) to review the application for registration of the word mark ‘1000 PANORAMICZNYCH’ as an EU trade mark (application for registration No 15 299 671), in particular with a view to removing any current irregularities, finding that the word sign ‘1000 PANORAMICZNYCH’ does not meet the conditions laid down in Article 7(1) of Regulation 2017/1001, in particular points (b) and (c) thereof, and there are therefore no absolute grounds for refusal;

         and/or

               —

               declare, in accordance with Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001, that the word sign ‘1000 PANORAMICZNYCH’ has acquired distinctive character through use (secondary distinctiveness), and there are therefore no grounds for refusing to register the trade mark, and in particular none of the conditions set out in Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) of that regulation apply;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

   Infringement of Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) of Regulation 2017/1001.


title: Case C-131/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 19 February 2018 — Vanessa Gambietz v Erika Ziegler

text:
               23.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/36

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 19 February 2018 — Vanessa Gambietz v Erika Ziegler
   (Case C-131/18)
   (2018/C 142/48)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Vanessa Gambietz

      Defendant: Erika Ziegler

      Question referred

   Is Article 6(3) of Directive 2011/7/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on combating late payment in commercial transactions (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the fixed sum of EUR 40 referred to in Article 6(1) of that directive is to be offset against external legal costs which have been incurred in connection with the pre-litigation instruction of a lawyer following late payment on the part of the debtor and are therefore reimbursable under Article 6(3) of that directive?

      (1)  OJ 2011 L 48, p. 1.


title: Case T-482/13: Order of the General Court of 21 February 2018 — MedSkin Solutions Dr. Suwelack v EUIPO — Cryo-Save (CryoDafe) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               30.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 152/34

         Order of the General Court of 21 February 2018 — MedSkin Solutions Dr. Suwelack v EUIPO — Cryo-Save (CryoDafe)
   (Case T-482/13) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate))
   (2018/C 152/43)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: MedSkin Solutions Dr. Suwelack AG (Billerbeck, Germany) (represented by: A. Thünken, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: Cryo-Save AG (Freienbach, Switzerland) (represented by: C. Onken, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 July 2013 (Case R 1759/2012 4), relating to opposition proceedings between Cryo-Save AG and MedSkin Solutions Dr. Suwelack AG.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate in the action;

               2.

               MedSkin Solutions Dr. Suwelack AG and Cryo-Save AG are ordered to jointly and severally to bear the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO);

               3.

               MedSkin Solutions Dr. Suwelack AG et Cryo-Save AG are ordered to bear their own costs in accordance with the terms of their agreement.

      (1)  OJ C 313, 26.10.2013.


title: Case C-114/18: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) made on 14 February 2018 — Sandoz Ltd, Hexal AG v G.D. Seale LLC, Janssen Sciences Ireland

text:
               30.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 152/17

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) made on 14 February 2018 — Sandoz Ltd, Hexal AG v G.D. Seale LLC, Janssen Sciences Ireland
   (Case C-114/18)
   (2018/C 152/20)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Sandoz Ltd, Hexal AG

      Defendants: G.D. Seale LLC, Janssen Sciences Ireland

      Question referred

   Where the sole active ingredient the subject of a supplementary protection certificate issued under [the SPC Regulation] (1) is a member of a class of compounds which fall within a Markush definition in a claim of the patent, all of which class members embody the core inventive technical advance of the patent, is it sufficient for the purposes of Article 3(a) of the SPC Regulation that the compound would, upon examination of its structure, immediately be recognised as one which falls within the class (and therefore would be protected by the patent as a matter of national patent law) or must the specific substituents necessary to form the active ingredient be amongst those which the skilled person could derive, based on their common general knowledge, from a reading of the patent claims?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products (OJ 2009, L 152, p. 1).


title: Case T-113/18: Action brought on 22 February 2018 — Miles-Bramwell Executive Services v EUIPO (FREE)

text:
               30.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 152/43

         Action brought on 22 February 2018 — Miles-Bramwell Executive Services v EUIPO (FREE)
   (Case T-113/18)
   (2018/C 152/52)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Miles-Bramwell Executive Services Ltd (Alfreton, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Mellor, QC)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark FREE — Application for registration No 15 083 091

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 November 2017 in Case R 2164/2016-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 2017/1001;

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 2017/1001.


title: Case T-114/18: Action brought on 22 February 2018 — Miles-Bramwell Executive Services v EUIPO (FREE)

text:
               30.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 152/43

         Action brought on 22 February 2018 — Miles-Bramwell Executive Services v EUIPO (FREE)
   (Case T-114/18)
   (2018/C 152/53)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Miles-Bramwell Executive Services Ltd (Alfreton, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Mellor, QC)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark FREE — Application for registration No 15 081 508

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 November 2017 in Case R 2166/2016-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 2017/1001;

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 2017/1001.


title: Case T-116/18: Action brought on 27 February 2018 — Darmanin v EASO

text:
               30.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 152/44

         Action brought on 27 February 2018 — Darmanin v EASO
   (Case T-116/18)
   (2018/C 152/54)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Joanna Darmanin (Sliema, Malta) (represented by: N. De Montigny, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Asylum Support Office

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Authority Empowered to Conclude Contracts (Executive Director) of 27 June 2017 by which the applicant was dismissed at the end of the probation period, from 15 July 2017;

               —

               in so far as necessary, annul the express decision rejecting the complaint of 29 January 2018;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 14 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants (‘the CEOS’) and of the Guide applicable to the procedure for appraising trainees at the European Asylum Support Office (EASO).

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) and of the decision of the Management Board of EASO of 18 January 2016 implementing Articles 43 and 44 of the Staff Regulations for temporary staff.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Decision No 11 of the Management Board of EASO of 4 July 2012 on middle management staff.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of good administration and legal certainty.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, a plea of illegality due to infringement of the principle of equal treatment and infringement of the effective right to be heard.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to implement an appraisal procedure that is lawful, equitable and predictable.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging non-compliance with the rules concerning the burden of proof.


title: Case C-206/18: Action brought on 23 March 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

text:
               28.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/16

         Action brought on 23 March 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-206/18)
   (2018/C 182/19)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Samnadda, J. Hottiaux and G. von Rintelen, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Poland

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to ensure compliance with Directive 2014/26/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on collective management of copyright and related rights and multi-territorial licensing of rights in musical works for online use in the internal market, (1) or, in any event, by failing to notify the Commission of such provisions, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 43 of that directive;

               —

               order the Republic of Poland, pursuant to Article 260(3) TFEU, to pay a penalty payment for failure to fulfil its obligation to notify the measures transposing Directive 2014/26/EU at a daily rate of EUR 87 612 from the day on which judgment is delivered in the present case;

               —

               order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Pursuant to Article 43(1) of Directive 2014/26/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on collective management of copyright and related rights and multi-territorial licensing of rights in musical works for online use in the internal market, the Member States were required to introduce the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to ensure compliance with that directive by 10 April 2016. They were required immediately to inform the Commission thereof.
   On 22 November 2017 the Republic of Poland sent to the Commission three already existing legal acts, which only partially transpose Directive 2014/26/EU. Because the Republic of Poland has still not incorporated into Polish law, or brought into force, all the necessary provisions, the Commission has decided to bring an action before the Court of Justice of the European Union.
   In its application, the Commission requests that the Republic of Poland be ordered to pay a penalty payment at a daily rate of EUR 87 612 from the day on which judgment is delivered in the present case. That rate has been established by taking into account the seriousness of the infringement, the duration of the infringement, and the need to ensure deterrence.

      (1)  OJ 2014 L 84, p. 72.


title: Case C-130/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 19 February 2018 — flightright GmbH v Eurowings GmbH

text:
               28.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/8

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 19 February 2018 — flightright GmbH v Eurowings GmbH
   (Case C-130/18)
   (2018/C 182/08)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Düsseldorf

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: flightright GmbH

      Defendant: Eurowings GmbH

      Question referred

   Is Article 5(1)(c)(iii) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (1) (‘the Air Passenger Rights Regulation’) to be interpreted as meaning that there is no right to compensation in the event of cancellation less than seven days before the scheduled time of departure even in the case where the passenger is subject to a loss of time of less than three hours but more than two hours as a result of re-routing, because the actual arrival, in comparison with the scheduled arrival, is delayed by more than two hours but by less than three hours?

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.


title: Case C-179/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidsrechtbank Gent (Belgium) lodged on 7 March 2018 — Ronny Rohart v Federale Pensioendienst

text:
               28.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/12

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidsrechtbank Gent (Belgium) lodged on 7 March 2018 — Ronny Rohart v Federale Pensioendienst
   (Case C-179/18)
   (2018/C 182/13)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Arbeidsrechtbank Gent

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ronny Rohart

      Defendant: Federale Pensioendienst

      Question referred

   Must the principle of sincere cooperation as laid down in Article 4(3) TEU, in conjunction with the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, as laid down in Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 (1) of the Council of 29 February 1968, be interpreted as precluding the legislation of a Member State not permitting the military service which a worker has carried out in a Member State to be taken into account in the calculation of that worker’s retirement pension on the basis of his performance in that Member State, because at the time of his military service and subsequently as well, the person concerned was uninterruptedly an official of the European Union, and consequently, does not satisfy the conditions for equivalence as laid down in the legislation of that Member State?

      (1)  Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 of the Council of 29 February 1968 laying down the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities and instituting special measures temporarily applicable to officials of the Commission (OJ 1968, L 56, p. 1).


title: Case C-80/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 6 February 2018 — Asociación Española de la Industria Eléctrica (UNESA) v Administración General del Estado, Iberdrola Generación Nuclear, S.A.U.

text:
               28.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/2

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 6 February 2018 — Asociación Española de la Industria Eléctrica (UNESA) v Administración General del Estado, Iberdrola Generación Nuclear, S.A.U.
   (Case C-80/18)
   (2018/C 182/02)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Supremo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Asociación Española de la Industria Eléctrica (UNESA)

      Respondents: Administración General del Estado, Iberdrola Generación Nuclear, S.A.U.

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the ‘polluter pays’ principle, affirmed in Article 191(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, together with Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which establish the basic principles of equality and non-discrimination, when applied to the provisions in Article 3(1) and (2) of Directive 2009/72/EC, (1) insofar as it is intended, among other aims, to achieve a competitive and non-discriminatory market in electricity that may be altered only on grounds of general economic interest, including the protection of the environment, preclude the introduction of taxes that apply solely to electricity generation companies that use nuclear energy, when the main purpose of those taxes is not environmental but to increase the volume of the electric power financial system in such a way that these companies contribute more to funding the tariff deficit than other companies that carry on the same activity?

               2.

               In a competitive and non-discriminatory electricity market, does EU legislation permit the levying of environmental taxes on grounds of the pollution caused by nuclear activities, although this is not specified in the legislation (the grounds are referred to in the Preamble to the Law), with the result that, as regards the tax on the production of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste, the statutory provisions having legislative force fail to reflect the internalisation of the costs to be covered, and there is also a lack of specificity as regards the storage of radioactive waste, given that the management and storage costs are already covered by other levies, and there is also a failure to establish clearly what the revenue raised is to be used for, and the companies in question are required to assume civil liabilities of up to 1 200 million in this regard?

               3.

               Is Article 3(2) of the abovementioned Directive, which requires any obligations imposed on grounds of general economic interest, including environmental protection, to be clearly defined, transparent, non-discriminatory and verifiable, satisfied if the environmental objective and the essential characteristics that define environmental taxes are not specified in the statutory provision having legislative force?

               4.

               Do the ‘polluter pays’ principle in Article 191(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the principles of equality and non-discrimination in Articles 20 and 21 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, and Articles 3 and 5 of Directive 2005/89/EC, (2) insofar as they seek to ensure ‘the proper functioning of the internal market for electricity’ and call on Member States to ensure ‘that any measures adopted in accordance with this Directive are non-discriminatory and do not place an unreasonable burden on the market actors’, preclude a provision in national legislation that requires all electricity companies (other than generators of hydroelectricity, which is classified as renewable energy) to fund the tariff deficit, but which imposes a particularly heavy tax burden on nuclear generators, which are required to contribute more than other actors in the energy market, some of which are more polluting, but that do not have to pay these charges, the reasons given being grounds of environmental protection in view of the risks and uncertainties inherent in nuclear activities, without specifying the costs involved or stipulating that the revenue raised is to be used for environmental protection purposes (and given that waste management and storage are already covered by other levies, and nuclear generation companies assume civil liability), and that distorts the free competition required by the liberalised internal market by favouring other electricity generators that do not have to pay environmental taxes even when their sources of production are more highly polluting?

               5.

               Is a tax on the production of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste from nuclear power generation imposed on the nuclear generation industry alone and not applicable to any other sector that may generate such waste, which means that other firms that could use nuclear material or nuclear sources in their activities are not taxed, even though they affect the environment that is to be protected, contrary to the ‘polluter pays’ principle in Article 191(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union?

      (1)  Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC (OJ 2009 L 211, p. 55).

      (2)  Directive 2005/89/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 January 2006 concerning measures to safeguard security of electricity supply and infrastructure investment (OJ 2006 L 33, p. 22).


title: Case C-221/18 P: Appeal brought on 27 March 2018 by Électricité de France (EDF) against the judgment delivered on 16 January 2018 in Case T-747/15 EDF v Commission

text:
               28.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/17

         Appeal brought on 27 March 2018 by Électricité de France (EDF) against the judgment delivered on 16 January 2018 in Case T-747/15 EDF v Commission
   (Case C-221/18 P)
   (2018/C 182/20)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Électricité de France (EDF) (represented by: M. Debroux, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   Principally:

               —

               set aside the judgment under appeal;

               —

               rule on the action at first instance, upholding it and, in consequence, annulling Articles 1 to 5 of Commission Decision (EU) 2016/154 of 22 July 2015 concerning State aid SA.13869 (C 68/2002) (ex NN 80/2002); (1)

         In the alternative:

               —

               rule definitively on the first plea in law and the first part of the second plea in law of the action at first instance, upholding the first part of the second plea and, in consequence, hold that the principle of the market economy operator applies to the contested measure;

               —

               refer the dispute back to a differently-composed General Court for a ruling on the other pleas and arguments set out by the applicant in its application of 22 December 2015 and reserve the costs of the first instance;

         In the further alternative:

               —

               refer the dispute back to a differently-composed General Court for a ruling on all the pleas and arguments set out by the applicant in its application of 22 December 2015 (including the pleas in the alternative) and reserve the costs of the first instance;

         In any event:

               —

               order the Commission to pay all the costs of the present instance.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the applicant raises four principal grounds of appeal and one ground of appeal in the alternative.
   The first ground of appeal alleges disregard of the force of res judicata attaching to the judgment delivered by the General Court on 15 December 2009, EDF v Commission (T-156/04). The judgment under appeal identifies the disputed measure as an alleged tax exemption, contrary to the judgment of 15 December 2009 delivered in that case which expressly rejected that approach. In order to justify that discrepancy in the identification of the disputed measure, the judgment under appeal appears impliedly, and wrongly, to point to the need to interpret the judgment of 15 December 2009‘in the light’ of the confirmatory judgment of the Court of Justice of 5 June 2012 (C-124/10 P). In that judgment, however, the Court of Justice did not rule on the identification of the disputed measure, which is a finding of fact.
   The second ground of appeal alleges a distortion of the evidence adduced before the General Court. That evidence describes the effectively implemented EDF capital restructuration measure and does not enable identification of the alleged tax exemption identified by the General Court.
   The third ground of appeal alleges disregard of the nature and scope of the obligation to conduct a diligent and impartial examination laid down in the recent case-law of the Court, in particular the judgment in Frucona Košice of 20 September 2007 (C-300/16 P), which was in fact the subject matter of written observations before the General Court.
   The fourth ground of appeal alleges disregard by the General Court of the obligation to state reasons, both as regards the identification of the measure at issue and the lack of discussion of the applicant’s arguments based on the Frucona Košice judgment.
   Finally, one ground of appeal raised in the alternative alleges an error of law in the identification of the alleged aid as new aid when it should have been classified as existing aid.

      (1)  OJ 2016 L 34, p. 152.


title: Case T-361/17: Order of the General Court of 21 March 2018 — Eco-Bat Technologies and Others v Commission (Action for annulment — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for car battery recycling — Decision correcting a decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and imposing fines — Period within which an action must be brought — Point from which time starts to run — Delay — Inadmissibility)

text:
               28.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/22

         Order of the General Court of 21 March 2018 — Eco-Bat Technologies and Others v Commission
   (Case T-361/17) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for car battery recycling - Decision correcting a decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and imposing fines - Period within which an action must be brought - Point from which time starts to run - Delay - Inadmissibility))
   (2018/C 182/26)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Eco-Bat Technologies Ltd (Matlock, United Kingdom), Berzelius Metall GmbH (Braubach, Germany), Société de traitements chimiques des métaux (STCM) (Bazoches-les-Gallerandes, France) (represented by: M. Brealey QC, I. Vandenborre and S. Dionnet, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. van Schaik, G. Conte, I. Rogalski and J. Szczodrowski, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking, first, annulment of Commission Decision C(2017) 900 final of 8 February 2017 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU (Case AT.40018 — Car battery recycling), as corrected by Commission Decision C(2017) 2223 final of 6 April 2017, and, second, a reduction of the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Eco-Bat Technologies Ltd, Berzelius Metall GmbH and Société de traitements chimiques des métaux (STCM) shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 318, 25.9.2017.


title: Case C-247/18 P: Appeal brought on 9 April 2018 by the Italian Republic against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 25 January 2018 in Case T-91/16, Italy v Commission

text:
               28.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/18

         Appeal brought on 9 April 2018 by the Italian Republic against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 25 January 2018 in Case T-91/16, Italy v Commission
   (Case C-247/18 P)
   (2018/C 182/21)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, Agent, and P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The Italian Republic claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside, pursuant to Articles 56 and 58 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, the judgment of 25 January 2018, notified on 29 January 2018, delivered by the General Court of the European Union in Case T-91/16, concerning the annulment of Commission Decision C(2015) 9413 of 17 December 2015, notified on 18 December 2015, concerning the reduction of the European Social Fund contribution for the operational programme for the Region of Sicily, which forms part of the Community support framework for structural interventions in the Italian regions covered by objective No 1 (POR Sicily 2000-2006); and to annul that Commission decision.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   The Italian Republic has appealed to the Court of Justice against the judgment of 25 January 2018 in Case T-91/16, by which the General Court of the European Union dismissed Italy’s action brought against Commission Decision C(2015) 9413 of 17 December 2015, notified on 18 December 2015, concerning the reduction of the European Social Fund contribution for the operational programme for the Region of Sicily, which forms part of the Community support framework for structural interventions in the Italian regions covered by objective No 1 (POR Sicily 2000-2006)

      First ground of appeal. Infringement of Article 39 of Regulation No 1260/99, (1)
      of Articles 4, 6 and 10 of Regulation No 438/[2001], (2)
      of Article 317 TFEU, and of the principle of the burden of proof.

   The General Court failed to find that the facts which it had accepted show that the audit reopened by the Commission in 2008 concerned the same expenditure as that which had already been the subject of a successful audit in 2005 and 2006, without new facts having emerged.

      Second ground of appeal. Infringement of Article 39 of Regulation No 1260/99, of Article 100 of Regulation No 1083/2006, (3)
      of Article 145 of Regulation No 1303/2013, (4)
      and of the principles of good administration, the right to be heard and the protection of legitimate expectations.

   The General Court found, without stating reasons, that the fact that the correction procedure had taken over seven years in total was justified, during which time the Commission acted, essentially, in such a way that the mandatory period of six months after the hearing — during which a final decision had to be adopted at a time within the Commission’s discretion — had lapsed, thereby nullifying its peremptory nature.

      Third ground of appeal. Infringement of Article 39(2) and (3) of Regulation No 1260/99 and of Article 10 of Regulation No 438/2001. Distortion of the facts.

   The General Court established that the error rate found in the circumstances of the case was appreciably different in respect of the periods before and after 31 December 2006, as was the error rate in respect of expenditure for ‘coherent’ projects by contrast with other projects. However, it wrongfully accepted as accurate the correction based on the extrapolation of the single error rate of 32,65 %, applied indiscriminately in respect of all the years in which the programme was operational and to all types of projects, and thereby infringed the principles of proportionality of the corrections and representative nature of the samples.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (OJ 1999 L 161, p. 1).

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 438/2001 of 2 March 2001 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 as regards the management and control systems for assistance granted under the Structural Funds (OJ 2001 L 63, p. 21).

      (3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (OJ 2006 L 210, p. 25).

      (4)  Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 320).


title: Case C-81/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 6 February 2018 — Endesa Generación, S.A. v Administración General del Estado

text:
               28.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/3

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 6 February 2018 — Endesa Generación, S.A. v Administración General del Estado
   (Case C-81/18)
   (2018/C 182/03)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Supremo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Endesa Generación, S.A.

      Respondent: Administración General del Estado

      Questions referred

               1)

               Does the ‘polluter pays’ principle, affirmed in Article 191(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, together with Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which establish the basic principles of equality and non-discrimination, when applied to the provisions in Article 3(1) and (2) of Directive 2009/72/EC, (1) insofar as it is intended, among other aims, to achieve a competitive and non-discriminatory market in electricity that may be altered only on grounds of general economic interest, including the protection of the environment, preclude the introduction of taxes that apply solely to electricity generation companies that use nuclear energy, when the true purpose of those taxes is not environmental but to increase the volume of revenue in the electric power financial system in such a way that these companies contribute more to funding the tariff deficit than other companies that carry on the same activity?

               2)

               In a competitive and non-discriminatory electricity market, does EU legislation preclude the levying of environmental taxes on grounds of the pollution caused by nuclear activities, although this is not specified in the legislation (the grounds are referred to in the preamble to the law), with the result that, as regards the tax on the production of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste, the statutory provisions having legislative force fail to reflect the internalisation of the costs to be covered, and there is also a lack of specificity as regards the storage of radioactive waste, given that the management and storage costs are already covered by other levies, and there is also a failure to establish clearly what the revenue raised is to be used for, and the companies in question are required to assume civil liabilities of up to 1 200 million in this regard?

               3)

               Does Article 3(2) of Directive 2009/72/EC, in accordance with which the specific obligations placed on the nuclear power generating industry that have to be imposed on grounds of general economic interest, including environmental protection, must be clearly defined, transparent, non-discriminatory and verifiable, preclude the taxes provided for in Law 15/2012 if the environmental objective and the essential characteristics that define environmental taxes are not specified in the statutory provision having legislative force?

               4)

               Do the ‘polluter pays’ principle in Article 191(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the principles of equality and non-discrimination in Articles 20 and 21 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, and Articles 3 and 5 of Directive 2005/89/EC, (2) insofar as they seek to ensure ‘the proper functioning of the internal market for electricity’ and call on Member States to ensure ‘that any measures adopted in accordance with this Directive are non-discriminatory and do not place an unreasonable burden on the market actors’, preclude a provision in national legislation that requires all electricity companies (other than generators of hydroelectricity, which is classified as renewable energy) to fund the tariff deficit, but which imposes a particularly heavy tax burden on nuclear generators, which are required to contribute more than other actors in the energy market, some of which are more polluting, but that do not have to pay these charges, the reasons given being grounds of environmental protection in view of the risks and uncertainties inherent in nuclear activities, without specifying the costs involved or stipulating that the revenue raised is to be used for environmental protection purposes, when the cost of waste management and storage is already covered by other levies, and nuclear generation companies assume civil liability, distorting the free competition required by the liberalised internal market by favouring other electricity generators that do not have to pay environmental taxes even when their sources of production are more highly polluting?

               5)

               Does Article 191(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which lays down ‘the polluter pays principle’, preclude a tax on the production of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste from nuclear power generation imposed on the nuclear generation industry alone and not applicable to any other sector that may generate such waste, which means that other undertakings that carry on activities using nuclear material or sources are not taxed, despite their effect on the values of environmental protection?

      (1)  Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC (OJ 2009 L 211, p. 55).

      (2)  Directive 2005/89/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 January 2006 concerning measures to safeguard security of electricity supply and infrastructure investment (OJ 2006 L 33, p. 22).


title: Case T-271/10 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 11 April 2018 — H v Council (Common foreign and security policy — National staff member seconded to EUPM in Bosnia and Herzegovina — Redeployment decision — Power of the Head of the EUPM to decide on the redeployment of a seconded national staff member — Obligation to state reasons — Misuse of powers — Manifest error of assessment — Psychological harassment)

text:
               28.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/20

         Judgment of the General Court of 11 April 2018 — H v Council
   (Case T-271/10 RENV) (1)

   ((Common foreign and security policy - National staff member seconded to EUPM in Bosnia and Herzegovina - Redeployment decision - Power of the Head of the EUPM to decide on the redeployment of a seconded national staff member - Obligation to state reasons - Misuse of powers - Manifest error of assessment - Psychological harassment))
   (2018/C 182/22)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: H (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Vitro and F. Naert, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   In the first place, application based on Article 263 TFEU for annulment of (i) the decision of 7 April 2010, signed by the Chief of Personnel of the European Union Police Mission (EUPM) in Bosnia and Herzegovina, by which the applicant was redeployed to the post of Criminal Justice Advisor — Prosecutor at the regional office in Banja Luka (Bosnia and Herzegovina) and (ii) of the decision of 30 April 2010, signed by the Head of EUPM referred to in Article 6 of Council Decision 2009/906/CFSP of 8 December 2009 on the EUPM in Bosnia and Herzegovina (OJ 2009 L 322, p. 22), confirming the decision of 7 April 2010, and in the second place, action on the basis of Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders H to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 221, 14.8.2010.


title: Case T-574/17: Order of the General Court of 21 March 2018 — UD v Commission (Civil Service — Recipient of a survivor’s pension — Social security — Rejection of a request for prior authorisation with a view to obtaining reimbursement of certain medical expenses — New request — Purely confirmatory document — Time limit for bringing an action — Inadmissibility)

text:
               28.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/23

         Order of the General Court of 21 March 2018 — UD v Commission
   (Case T-574/17) (1)

   ((Civil Service - Recipient of a survivor’s pension - Social security - Rejection of a request for prior authorisation with a view to obtaining reimbursement of certain medical expenses - New request - Purely confirmatory document - Time limit for bringing an action - Inadmissibility))
   (2018/C 182/27)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: UD (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Bohr and M. Mensi, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application on the basis of Article 270 TFEU seeking the annulment of the decision of the Commission refusing to grant the applicant prior authorisation to obtain reimbursement of certain medical expenses.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               UD shall bear her own costs and shall pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 369, 30.10.2017.


title: Case C-82/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 6 February 2018 — Endesa Generación, S.A. v Administración General del Estado, Iberdrola Generación Nuclear, S.A.U.

text:
               28.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/4

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 6 February 2018 — Endesa Generación, S.A. v Administración General del Estado, Iberdrola Generación Nuclear, S.A.U.
   (Case C-82/18)
   (2018/C 182/04)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Supremo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Endesa Generación, S.A.

      Respondents: Administración General del Estado, Iberdrola Generación Nuclear, S.A.U.

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the ‘polluter pays’ principle, affirmed in Article 191(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, together with Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which establish the basic principles of equality and non-discrimination, when applied to the provisions in Article 3(1) and (2) of Directive 2009/72/EC, (1) insofar as it is intended, among other aims, to achieve a competitive and non-discriminatory market in electricity that may be altered only on grounds of general economic interest, including the protection of the environment, preclude the introduction of taxes that apply solely to electricity generation companies that use nuclear energy, when the main purpose of those taxes is not environmental but to increase the volume of the electric power financial system in such a way that these companies contribute more to funding the tariff deficit than other companies that carry on the same activity?

               2.

               In a competitive and non-discriminatory electricity market, does EU legislation permit the levying of environmental taxes on grounds of the pollution caused by nuclear activities, although this is not specified in the legislation (the grounds are referred to in the Preamble to the Law), with the result that, as regards the tax on the production of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste, the statutory provisions having legislative force fail to reflect the internalisation of the costs to be covered, and there is also a lack of specificity as regards the storage of radioactive waste, given that the management and storage costs are already covered by other levies, and there is also a failure to establish clearly what the revenue raised is to be used for, and the companies in question are required to assume civil liabilities of up to 1 200 million in this regard?

               3.

               Is Article 3(2) of the abovementioned Directive, which requires any obligations imposed on grounds of general economic interest, including environmental protection, to be clearly defined, transparent, non-discriminatory and verifiable, satisfied if the environmental objective and the essential characteristics that define environmental taxes are not specified in the statutory provision having legislative force?

               4.

               Do the ‘polluter pays’ principle in Article 191(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the principles of equality and non-discrimination in Articles 20 and 21 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, and Articles 3 and 5 of Directive 2005/89/EC, (2) insofar as they seek to ensure ‘the proper functioning of the internal market for electricity’ and call on Member States to ensure ‘that any measures adopted in accordance with this Directive are non-discriminatory and do not place an unreasonable burden on the market actors’, preclude a provision in national legislation that requires all electricity companies (other than generators of hydroelectricity, which is classified as renewable energy) to fund the tariff deficit, but which imposes a particularly heavy tax burden on nuclear generators, which are required to contribute more than other actors in the energy market, some of which are more polluting, but that do not have to pay these charges, the reasons given being grounds of environmental protection in view of the risks and uncertainties inherent in nuclear activities, without specifying the costs involved or stipulating that the revenue raised is to be used for environmental protection purposes (and given that waste management and storage are already covered by other levies, and nuclear generation companies assume civil liability), and that distorts the free competition required by the liberalised internal market by favouring other electricity generators that do not have to pay environmental taxes even when their sources of production are more highly polluting?

               5.

               Is a tax on the production of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste from nuclear power generation imposed on the nuclear generation industry alone and not applicable to any other sector that may generate such waste, which means that other firms that could use nuclear material or nuclear sources in their activities are not taxed, even though they affect the environment that is to be protected, contrary to the ‘polluter pays’ principle in Article 191(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union?

      (1)  Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC (OJ 2009 L 211, p. 55).

      (2)  Directive 2005/89/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 January 2006 concerning measures to safeguard security of electricity supply and infrastructure investment (OJ 2006 L 33, p. 22).


title: Case T-274/15: Judgment of the General Court of 10 April 2018 — Alcogroup and Alcodis v Commission (Action for annulment — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Markets in bioethanol and ethanol — Administrative procedure — Decision ordering an inspection — Commission’s powers of investigation — Professional privilege protecting communications between lawyers and their clients — Documents exchanged following a previous inspection — Commission’s refusal to suspend the infringement proceedings at issue — Measure not open to challenge — Inadmissibility)

text:
               28.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/20

         Judgment of the General Court of 10 April 2018 — Alcogroup and Alcodis v Commission
   (Case T-274/15) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Markets in bioethanol and ethanol - Administrative procedure - Decision ordering an inspection - Commission’s powers of investigation - Professional privilege protecting communications between lawyers and their clients - Documents exchanged following a previous inspection - Commission’s refusal to suspend the infringement proceedings at issue - Measure not open to challenge - Inadmissibility))
   (2018/C 182/23)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Alcogroup (Brussels, Belgium) and Alcodis (Brussels) (represented by: P. de Bandt, J. Dewispelaere and J. Probst, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Christoforou, C. Giolito, V. Bottka and F. Jimeno Fernández, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the applicants: Orde van Vlaamse Balies (Brussels) (represented by: initially, T. Bontinck and P. Goffinet, and subsequently by F. Wijckmans, S. Engelen and S. De Keer, lawyers), Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone (Brussels) (represented by: T. Bontinck, A. Guillerme and P. Goffinet, lawyers), and Ordre français des avocats du barreau de Bruxelles (Brussels) (represented by: T. Bontinck, A. Guillerme and P. Goffinet, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2015) 1769 final of 12 March 2015, addressed to Alcogroup and to all companies directly or indirectly controlled by it, including Alcodis, and relating to a procedure pursuant to Article 20(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (AT.40244 — Bioethanol) and the annulment of the Commission’s letter of 8 May 2015 addressed to Alcogroup in the context of the investigations AT.40244 — Bioethanol and AT.40054 — Oil and Biofuel Markets.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

               2.

               Orders Alcogroup and Alcodis to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures;

               3.

               Orders the Orde van Vlaamse Balies, the Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone and the Ordre français des avocats du barreau de Bruxelles to bear their own respective costs incurred in the present proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2015.


title: Case C-180/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 9 March 2018 — Agrenergy Srl v Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico

text:
               28.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/12

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 9 March 2018 — Agrenergy Srl v Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico
   (Case C-180/18)
   (2018/C 182/14)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Agrenergy Srl

      Respondent: Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico

      Question referred

   Should Article 3(3)(a) of Directive 2009/28/EC (1) be interpreted — including in view of the general principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and the overall system of rules introduced by that directive to incentivise the production of energy from renewable sources — as rendering incompatible with EU law national legislation which allows the Italian Government, in subsequent implementing decrees, to reduce or even remove incentives introduced earlier?

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


title: Case T-732/16 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 22 March 2018 — Valencia Club de Fútbol v Commission (Interim proceedings — State aid — Aid granted by Spain in favour of certain professional football clubs — Public guarantee granted by a public body — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market — Application for a stay of proceedings — Lack of urgency)

text:
               28.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/21

         Order of the President of the General Court of 22 March 2018 — Valencia Club de Fútbol v Commission
   (Case T-732/16 R)
   ((Interim proceedings - State aid - Aid granted by Spain in favour of certain professional football clubs - Public guarantee granted by a public body - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market - Application for a stay of proceedings - Lack of urgency))
   (2018/C 182/24)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Valencia Club de Fútbol, SAD (Valencia, Spain) (represented by: J. García-Gallardo Gil-Fournier and A. Guerrero Righetto, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Luengo, B. Stromsky and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the form of order sought by the applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Gavela Llopis, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Application on the basis of Articles 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU seeking a stay of execution of Commission Decision (EU) 2017/365 of 4 July 2016 on the State aid SA.36387 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) (ex 2013/CP) granted by Spain to Valencia Club de Fútbol, Hércules Club de Fútbol, SAD and Elche Club de Fútbol, SAD (OJ 2017 L 55, p. 12).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is rejected.

               2.

               The order of 10 November 2016, Valencia Club de Fútbol v Commission (T-732/16 R), is set aside.

               3.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case T-34/18: Action brought on 24 January 2018 — Giove Gas v EUIPO — Primagaz (KALON AL CENTRO DELLA FAMIGLIA)

text:
               28.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/23

         Action brought on 24 January 2018 — Giove Gas v EUIPO — Primagaz (KALON AL CENTRO DELLA FAMIGLIA)
   (Case T-34/18)
   (2018/C 182/28)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Giove Gas Srl (Tarquinia, Italy) (represented by: A. Bergonzini and F. Dinelli, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Compagnie des gaz de pétrole Primagaz (Paris, France)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word elements ‘KALON AL CENTRO DELLA FAMIGLIA’ — Application for registration No 14 740 559

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 November 2017 in Case R 1271/2017-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               alter the contested decision in its entirety;

               —

               order the registration of the mark.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001.


title: Case C-134/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 19 February 2018 — Maria Vester v Rijksdienst voor Ziekte- en Invaliditeitsverzekering (Riziv)

text:
               28.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/9

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 19 February 2018 — Maria Vester v Rijksdienst voor Ziekte- en Invaliditeitsverzekering (Riziv)
   (Case C-134/18)
   (2018/C 182/09)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Maria Vester

      Defendant: Rijksdienst voor Ziekte- en Invaliditeitsverzekering (Riziv)

      Questions referred

   ‘Are Articles 45 TFEU and 48 TFEU infringed in the case where the last competent Member State refuses, upon commencement of incapacity for work, after expiry of a waiting period of 52 [Or. 9] weeks of incapacity for work, during which illness benefits were awarded, entitlement to invalidity benefit on the basis of Article 57 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, and the other, previously competent Member State applies, for the examination of the entitlement to a pro-rata invalidity benefit, a 104-week waiting period in accordance with the national law of that Member State?
   If that is the case, is it compatible with the right of free movement that the person concerned, during this waiting time gap, is dependent on social assistance, or do Articles 45 TFEU and 48 TFEU oblige the previously competent Member State to examine the entitlement to invalidity benefits after expiry of the waiting period under the legislation of the last competent Member State, even if the national law of the previously competent Member State does not permit this?’

      (1)  OJ 2004, L 166, p. 1.


title: Case C-184/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Central Administrativo Sul (Portugal) lodged on 12 March 2018 — Fazenda Pública v Carlos Manuel Patrício Teixeira, Maria Madalena da Silva Moreira Patrício Teixeira

text:
               28.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/13

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Central Administrativo Sul (Portugal) lodged on 12 March 2018 — Fazenda Pública v Carlos Manuel Patrício Teixeira, Maria Madalena da Silva Moreira Patrício Teixeira
   (Case C-184/18)
   (2018/C 182/15)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Tribunal Central Administrativo Sul

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Fazenda Pública

      Defendants: Carlos Manuel Patrício Teixeira, Maria Madalena da Silva Moreira Patrício Teixeira

      Question referred

   Must the combined provisions of Articles 12, 56, 57 and 58 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (now Articles 18, 63, 64 and 65 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) be interpreted to the effect that they preclude national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings (Article 43(2) of the Código do Imposto sobre o Rendimento das Pessoas Singulares, approved by Decree-Law No 442-A/88 of 30 November 1988, as amended by Law No 109- B/2001 of 27 December 2001) which subjects capital gains resulting from the transfer of immovable property situated in a Member State (Portugal) where that transfer is made by a national of that Member State residing in a third country (Angola) to a tax burden greater than that which would be applicable for the same type of transaction to capital gains realised by a resident of the State in which that immovable property is situated?’


title: Case C-83/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 7 February 2018 — Iberdrola Generación Nuclear, S.A.U. v Administración General del Estado

text:
               28.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/6

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 7 February 2018 — Iberdrola Generación Nuclear, S.A.U. v Administración General del Estado
   (Case C-83/18)
   (2018/C 182/05)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Supremo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Iberdrola Generación Nuclear, S.A.U.

      Respondents: Administración General del Estado

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the ‘polluter pays’ principle, affirmed in Article 191(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, together with Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which establish the basic principles of equality and non-discrimination, when applied to the provisions in Article 3(1) and (2) of Directive 2009/72/EC, (1) insofar as it is intended, among other aims, to achieve a competitive and non-discriminatory market in electricity that may be altered only on grounds of general economic interest, including the protection of the environment, preclude the introduction of taxes that apply solely to electricity generation companies that use nuclear energy, when the main purpose of those taxes is not environmental but to increase the volume of the electric power financial system in such a way that these companies contribute more to funding the tariff deficit than other companies that carry on the same activity?

               2.

               In a competitive and non-discriminatory electricity market, does EU legislation permit the levying of environmental taxes on grounds of the pollution caused by nuclear activities, although this is not specified in the legislation (the grounds are referred to in the Preamble to the Law), with the result that, as regards the tax on the production of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste, the statutory provisions having legislative force fail to reflect the internalisation of the costs to be covered, and there is also a lack of specificity as regards the storage of radioactive waste, given that the management and storage costs are already covered by other levies, and there is also a failure to establish clearly what the revenue raised is to be used for, and the companies in question are required to assume civil liabilities of up to 1 200 million in this regard?

               3.

               Is Article 3(2) of the abovementioned Directive, which requires any obligations imposed on grounds of general economic interest, including environmental protection, to be clearly defined, transparent, non-discriminatory and verifiable, satisfied if the environmental objective and the essential characteristics that define environmental taxes are not specified in the statutory provision having legislative force?

               4.

               Do the ‘polluter pays’ principle in Article 191(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the principles of equality and non-discrimination in Articles 20 and 21 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, and Articles 3 and 5 of Directive 2005/89/EC, (2) insofar as they seek to ensure ‘the proper functioning of the internal market for electricity’ and call on Member States to ensure ‘that any measures adopted in accordance with this Directive are non-discriminatory and do not place an unreasonable burden on the market actors’, preclude a provision in national legislation that requires all electricity companies (other than generators of hydroelectricity, which is classified as renewable energy) to fund the tariff deficit, but which imposes a particularly heavy tax burden on nuclear generators, which are required to contribute more than other actors in the energy market, some of which are more polluting, but that do not have to pay these charges, the reasons given being grounds of environmental protection in view of the risks and uncertainties inherent in nuclear activities, without specifying the costs involved or stipulating that the revenue raised is to be used for environmental protection purposes (and given that waste management and storage are already covered by other levies, and nuclear generation companies assume civil liability), and that distorts the free competition required by the liberalised internal market by favouring other electricity generators that do not have to pay environmental taxes even when their sources of production are more highly polluting?

               5.

               Is a tax on the production of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste from nuclear power generation imposed on the nuclear generation industry alone and not applicable to any other sector that may generate such waste, which means that other firms that could use nuclear material or nuclear sources in their activities are not taxed, even though they affect the environment that is to be protected, contrary to the ‘polluter pays’ principle in Article 191(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union?

      (1)  Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC (OJ 2009 L 211, p. 55).

      (2)  Directive 2005/89/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 January 2006 concerning measures to safeguard security of electricity supply and infrastructure investment (OJ 2006 L 33, p. 22).


title: Case T-135/18: Action brought on 5 March 2018 — Szegedi v Parliament

text:
               28.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/24

         Action brought on 5 March 2018 — Szegedi v Parliament
   (Case T-135/18)
   (2018/C 182/29)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Parties

      Applicant: Csanád Szegedi (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: Kristóf Bodó, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul debit note No 2017-1635 issued by the Secretary-General of the European Parliament;

               —

               annul the recovery decision, in the amount of EUR 264 196,11, adopted by the Secretary-General of the European Parliament on 30 November 2017.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that, in the Secretary-General’s decision, the findings concerning reimbursement of travel expenses and of expenses for accredited parliamentary assistants were unfounded. The applicant claimed the reimbursement of travel expenses only in those cases in which he was entitled to do so in accordance with Decision No 2009/C 159/01 of the Bureau of the European Parliament concerning implementing measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament.
               The accredited parliamentary assistants referred to in the decision, who had a contractual relationship with the European Parliament, performed support tasks in relation to the applicant’s role as a Member of the European Parliament (MEP) in Brussels and Strasbourg.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of equality of arms.
               The applicant did not have access to the evidence supporting the facts set out in the Secretary-General’s decision. Although the applicant submitted a written request, the Secretary-General did not provide him with that evidence, which prevented him from at any time submitting observations on the substance. The Secretary-General’s decision, on which the debit note was based, as a legal measure affecting the applicant, was adopted in breach of the principles of impartial and fair procedure, equality of arms and the applicant’s rights of defence.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Secretary-General’s decision was vitiated by an error of law as regards the burden of proof. Contrary to what was stated in the Secretary-General’s decision, the arguments set out in paragraph 54 of the Court’s judgment of 10 October 2014 in Case T-479/13, Marciani v Parliament, cannot be considered relevant in the present case, precisely because in the case of MEP Marciani the so-called ‘GDD Rules’ (Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament) had to be applied, whereas, during the applicant’s mandate as a MEP, Council Regulation (EC) No 160/2009 was already in force.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that there is no legal basis for reimbursement of the salary paid to the accredited parliamentary assistants. This plea has two limbs:
               The first limb of the fourth plea alleges that there is no legal relationship between the applicant and the European Parliament. Since the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 160/2009, it is the European Parliament, and not the MEP, which has a legal relationship with the accredited parliamentary assistant and the European Parliament does not reimburse expenses, but pays a salary. As regards the employment relationship of accredited parliamentary assistants, the applicant has no contractual relationship with the European Parliament. The European Parliament did not pay the applicant the relevant salary for the accredited parliamentary assistant. In the absence of any legal relationship or any basis in law, the applicant cannot be under any obligation to reimburse the European Parliament.
               The second limb of the fourth plea in law alleges that activity outside the accredited parliamentary assistants’ work does not give rise to any right to the repayment of the salary paid. Article 12 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union does not prohibit the exercise of an activity outside the service, but requires only that the relevant consent be obtained from the appointing authority. On the other hand, where consent is not requested, the rules do not lay down penalties in the form of full reimbursement of the salary paid.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that a rule which lays down a requirement may not be applied retroactively. Point 8 of the Secretary-General’s decision refers to, as part of the legal basis for the decision, Article 39a of the Implementing Measures, although the Decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament amending the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament (2015/C 397/03) has been applicable from 1 January 2016, with the result that it is not relevant to the present dispute.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging a failure to state reasons and infringement of the principle of proportionality, as regards the determination of the amount. The amount claimed is not justified in detail or by means of a calculation, and assumes that the parliamentary assistant never worked for the applicant.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging that an assessment was made of the document confirming the date of travel, attached to the request for reimbursement of travel expenses, which departed from its purpose and drew an incorrect inference from that document.


title: Case C-143/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Bonn (Germany) lodged on 23 February 2018 — Antonio Romano, Lidia Romano v DSL Bank

text:
               28.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/9

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Bonn (Germany) lodged on 23 February 2018 — Antonio Romano, Lidia Romano v DSL Bank
   (Case C-143/18)
   (2018/C 182/10)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landgericht Bonn

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Antonio Romano, Lidia Romano

      Defendant: DSL Bank

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 6(2)(c) of Directive 2002/65/EC (1) to be interpreted as precluding national legislation or practice such as that of the main proceedings which does not provide for the right of withdrawal to be inapplicable in the case of distance loan contracts whose performance has been fully completed by both parties at the consumer’s express request before the consumer exercises his right of withdrawal?

               2.

               Are Article 4(2), Article 5(1), the second indent of the second subparagraph of Article 6(1) and Article 6(6) of Directive 2002/65/EC to be interpreted as meaning that, for proper receipt of information as provided for by national law in accordance with Article 5(1) and Article 3(1)(3)(a) of Directive 2002/65/EC and the exercise of the right of withdrawal by the consumer pursuant to national law, reference must be made to no consumer other than a reasonably well-informed and reasonably observant and circumspect average consumer, having regard to all the relevant facts and all the circumstances surrounding the conclusion of this contract?

               3.

               In the event that Questions 1 and 2 are answered in the negative:
               Is Article 7(4) of Directive 2002/65/EC to be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which provides that, after withdrawal from a distance consumer loan contract has been declared, the supplier must also pay to the consumer, beyond the sum he has received from the consumer in accordance with the distance contract, compensation for the benefit of use on this sum?

      (1)  Directive 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 concerning the distance marketing of consumer financial services and amending Council Directive 90/619/EEC and Directives 97/7/EC and 98/27/EC (OJ 2002 L 271, p. 16).


title: Case C-185/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 9 March 2018 — Oro Efectivo S.L. v Diputación Foral de Bizkaia

text:
               28.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/13

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 9 March 2018 — Oro Efectivo S.L. v Diputación Foral de Bizkaia
   (Case C-185/18)
   (2018/C 182/16)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Supremo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Oro Efectivo S.L.

      Defendant: Diputación Foral de Bizkaia

      Question referred

   Does Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, (1) the principle of tax neutrality arising from that directive, and the case-law of the Court of Justice interpreting the directive preclude a national rule of law under which a Member State may require payment of an indirect tax other than VAT from a business person or professional in respect of the purchase of movable property (specifically, gold, silver or jewellery) from a private individual where:

               1.

               the purchased object is going to be processed and subsequently sold on in the course of that business person’s economic activities;

               2.

               transactions subject to VAT will occur when the purchased property is reintroduced into the course of trade; and

               3.

               in such transactions the applicable legislation in that same Member State does not permit the business person or professional to deduct the amount paid by way of that tax in respect of the initial purchase?

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


title: Case T-198/18: Action brought on 16 March 2018 — Chrysses Demetriades & Co. and Provident Fund of the Employees of Chrysses Demetriades & Co v Council and Others

text:
               28.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/26

         Action brought on 16 March 2018 — Chrysses Demetriades & Co. and Provident Fund of the Employees of Chrysses Demetriades & Co v Council and Others
   (Case T-198/18)
   (2018/C 182/30)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Chrysses Demetriades & Co. LLC (Limassol, Cyprus), Provident Fund of the Employees of Chrysses Demetriades & Co LLC (Limassol) (represented by: P. Tridimas, Barrister)

      Defendants: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European Central Bank, Eurogroup and European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               order the defendants to pay the applicants the sums shown in the schedule annexed to this application plus interest accruing from 26 March 2013 until the judgment of the Court;

               —

               order the defendants to pay the costs.

         In the alternative, by way of subsidiary claim, the applicants request the Court to:

               —

               find that the European Union and/or the defendant institutions have incurred non-contractual liability;

               —

               determine the procedure to be followed in order to establish the recoverable loss actually suffered by the applicants; and

               —

               order the defendants to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-197/18, JV Voscf and Others v Council and Others.


title: Case C-97/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Noord-Nederland (Netherlands) lodged on 12 February 2018 — Openbaar Ministerie v ET

text:
               28.5.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/7

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Noord-Nederland (Netherlands) lodged on 12 February 2018 — Openbaar Ministerie v ET
   (Case C-97/18)
   (2018/C 182/06)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank Noord-Nederland, sitting in Leeuwarden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Openbaar Ministerie

      Defendant: ET

      Questions referred

               1.

               Can Article 12(1) of Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA (1) be interpreted as meaning that, when a confiscation order transferred by an issuing State is executed in the Netherlands, a term of imprisonment pending payment as referred to in Article 577c of the Netherlands Code of Criminal Procedure may be applied, having regard to, inter alia, the decision of the Hoge Raad of 20 December 2011 (2) to the effect that a term of imprisonment pending payment must be deemed to be a penalty within the meaning of Article 7(1) of the ECHR?

               2.

               Does it make any difference to the possibility of applying a term of imprisonment pending payment whether the law of the issuing State also makes provision for the possibility of applying a term of imprisonment pending payment?

      (1)  Council Framework Decision of 6 October 2006 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to confiscation orders (OJ 2006 L 328, p. 59).

      (2)  NL:HR:2011:BP9449.