title: Case T-578/19: Action brought on 21 August 2019 — Sophia Group v Parliament

text:
               28.10.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 363/20

      Action brought on 21 August 2019 — Sophia Group v Parliament
      (Case T-578/19)
      (2019/C 363/29)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Sophia Group (Saint-Josse-ten-Noode, Belgium) (represented by: Y. Schneider and C.-H. de la Vallée Poussin, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Parliament

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  declare the present application for annulment admissible and well founded;

                  —

                  consequently, annul the decision of the European Parliament to award Lot 1 of the contract for the provision of Buildings HelpDesk services (Call for tenders No 06A0010/2019/M011) to Computer Resources International S.A., which has its registered office at 11 Rue de l’Industrie, 8399 Windhof, Luxembourg;

                  —

                  if necessary, annul:

                              —

                              the Parliament’s decision of an unknown date signing the contract relating to Lot 1 of the contract for the provision of Buildings HelpDesk services (Call for tenders No 06A0010/2019/M011);

                              —

                              the contract concluded with the successful tenderer designated in connection with Lot 1 of the contract for the provision of Buildings HelpDesk services (Call for tenders No 06A0010/2019/M011);

                  —

                  order the European Parliament to pay all of the costs, including procedural compensation.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea, alleging infringement of Articles 160 and 167 of, and points 16.3, 18.2 and 21.1 of Annex I to, Regulation 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union, amending Regulations (EU) No 1296/2013, (EU) No 1301/2013, (EU) No 1303/2013, (EU) No 1304/2013, (EU) No 1309/2013, (EU) No 1316/2013, (EU) No 223/2014, (EU) No 283/2014, and Decision No 541/2014/EU and repealing Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012, misuse of powers, manifest error of assessment and infringement of the general principles of competition, transparency, proportionality, equal treatment and non-discrimination in public contracts. Under the first plea, the applicant submits that some of the award criteria on the basis of which the successful tenderer was designated fall under the qualitative selection, not the award, even though the selection criteria are strictly linked to the assessment of candidates or tenderers and the award criteria are strictly linked to the assessment of tenders and must make it possible to identify the most economically advantageous tender.

                  2.

                  Second plea, alleging infringement of Articles 160 and 167 of, and point 18.2 of Annex I to, Regulation 2018/1046, misuse of powers, manifest error of assessment and infringement of the general principles of competition, transparency, proportionality, equal treatment and non-discrimination in public contracts, in that some of the award criteria on the basis of which the successful tenderer for Lot 1 was designated were not linked to the subject matter of the contract and were, at the very least, vague and imprecise even though the award criteria must make it possible to identify the most economically advantageous tender, must be linked to and proportionate with the subject matter of the contract or lot concerned, must be clear and precise and may not leave unconditional freedom of choice in awarding the contract.

                  3.

                  Third plea, alleging infringement of Articles 160 and 167 of, and points 18.2 and 18.4 of Annex I to, Regulation 2018/1046, misuse of powers, manifest error of assessment and infringement of the general principles of competition, transparency, proportionality, equal treatment and non-discrimination in public contracts, in that the references requested from tenderers in the tender specifications in order to prove their technical and professional capacity to perform Lot 1 were not linked to the subject matter of the contract, were not proportionate and were vague and imprecise. The applicant claims that the selection criteria must be linked and proportionate to the subject matter of the contract in order not to result in a distortion of competition and must be clear and precise.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea, alleging infringement of Article 296 TFEU, Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 170 of, and points 18.6, 30.2 and 31.1 of Annex I to, Regulation 2018/1046, infringement of essential procedural requirements, infringement of the general EU law principles of transparency, competition and equal treatment, infringement of the principle that reasons must be stated for acts of the EU institutions, misuse of powers and infringement of the principle of sound administration. Those infringements were committed in so far as the ratings attributed to the applicant’s tender and that of the successful tenderer for the contract in the light of nine ‘quality’ award criteria lack adequate reasoning and/or are accompanied only by vague and imprecise comments, whereas any contract award decision must provide an adequate statement of reasons enabling tenderers to know the objective, specific and precise reasons underlying each of the grades attributed to the various tenders and must state the advantages and disadvantages of each of the tenders submitted in the light of the criteria set out in the tender specifications.


title: Case T-585/19: Action brought on 23 August 2019 — EJ v EIB

text:
               28.10.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 363/22

      Action brought on 23 August 2019 — EJ v EIB
      (Case T-585/19)
      (2019/C 363/30)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: EJ (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Investment Bank

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  declare the present action admissible and well founded

            consequently:

                  —

                  annul the decision of 16 February 2018 limiting to 18 months the retroactive entitlement to the payment of travel expenses incurred because of the serious illness of the applicant’s daughter and the decision of 23 March 2018 limiting to 5 years the retroactive entitlement to double dependent child allowance;

                  —

                  in so far as is necessary, annul the decision of 14 May 2019 confirming those decisions;

                  —

                  order payment of compensation for the material and non-material damage suffered;

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 2.2.3 of the administrative provisions and Article 1 of the HIS’s reimbursement ceilings, and manifest error of assessment

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials and the principle of sound administration.
                  The applicant also seeks an order requiring the defendant to pay the double dependent child allowance for the period from 1 September 2007 to 31 May 2012 and payment of travel costs incurred on account of the serious illness of the applicant’s daughter from 1 September 2007 to 18 February 2018, the amounts due to be increased by default interest at the rate of the European Central Bank plus two percentage points. Lastly, the applicant seeks compensation for the non-material damage suffered, assessed at EUR 2 000.


title: Case T-586/19: Action brought on 26 August 2019 — PL v Commission

text:
               28.10.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 363/23

      Action brought on 26 August 2019 — PL v Commission
      (Case T-586/19)
      (2019/C 363/31)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: PL (represented by: J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the Commission’s decision of 12 December 2018 establishing the applicant’s 2017 CDR;

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of the action against the Commission’s decision establishing the applicant’s career development report in respect of 2017 (2017 CDR), the latter relies on three pleas in law.

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 22a and 22b of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (the Staff Regulations) and infringement by the DG of DG HR of his duty to have regard for the welfare of officials.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union which confers on the applicant the right to good administration and, in particular, the right to have his affairs handled impartially, fairly and within a reasonable time.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the general implementing provisions for Article 43 of the Staff Regulations, breach of the duty to state reasons and failure to observe the rights of the defence.


title: Case T-587/19: Action brought on 26 August 2019 — Frutas Tono v EUIPO — Agrocazalla (Marién)

text:
               28.10.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 363/24

      Action brought on 26 August 2019 — Frutas Tono v EUIPO — Agrocazalla (Marién)
      (Case T-587/19)
      (2019/C 363/32)
      Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

         Parties

         Applicant: Frutas Tono, SL (Benifairo de la Valldigna, Spain) (represented by: A. Cañizares Doménech, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Agrocazalla, SL (Lorca, Spain)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

         Trade mark at issue: Application for the European Union figurative mark Marién — Application for registration No 15 146 021

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 June 2019 in Case R 171/2018-4

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision and, accordingly, set aside the costs order made against the applicant before the Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal and, instead, make a further order granting suspension of the appeal proceedings before EUIPO until such time as that Office gives a decision on the declaration of invalidity sought in respect of the opposing mark; or, in the alternative,

                  —

                  if, when judgment is given by the Court, the opposing mark has already been declared invalid by EUIPO, annul, in addition, the decision of the Board of Appeal, on the ground that it failed duly to analyse the effect on the compatibility of registration of the signs at issue, when it ought to have stayed the proceedings of its own motion; or, in the alternative,

                  —

                  in the event that the Court does not find as above, declare that there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue, for all of the reasons argued previously; and

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law

                  —

                  Priority right of the proprietor of the contested mark over the Spanish national marks 1798380 MARIEN, applied for on 12 January 1994 for Class 39; 1800302 MARIEN, applied for on 25 January 1994 for Class 35; and 2222325 MARIEN, applied for on 23 March 1999 for Class 31;

                  —

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


title: Case T-591/19: Action brought on 28 August 2019 – Healios v EUIPO – Helios Kliniken (Healios)

text:
               28.10.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 363/25

      Action brought on 28 August 2019 – Healios v EUIPO – Helios Kliniken (Healios)
      (Case T-591/19)
      (2019/C 363/33)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Healios KK (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: P. Venohr, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Helios Kliniken GmbH (Berlin, Germany)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

         Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark Healios – Application for registration No 14 267 041

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 June 2019 in Case R 341/2018-5

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision in so far as the appeal was allowed and the contested application was rejected;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law

                  —

                  Sufficient proofs of genuine use has not been provided, especially for ‘medical and bacteriology services’;

                  —

                  There is no or low similarity of the goods and services, especially when comparing medical and bacteriology services in class 5;

                  —

                  The graphic element and the perception of the relevant public was not sufficiently assessed.


title: Case T-593/19: Action brought on 30 August 2019 – Chypre v EUIPO – Fontana Food (GRILLOUMI BURGER)

text:
               28.10.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 363/25

      Action brought on 30 August 2019 – Chypre v EUIPO – Fontana Food (GRILLOUMI BURGER)
      (Case T-593/19)
      (2019/C 363/34)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

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

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fontana Food AB (Tyresö, Sweden)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

         Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark GRILLOUMI BURGER – Application for registration No 15 963 283

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 June 2019 in Case R 1297/2018-4

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

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

         Pleas in law

                  —

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

                  —

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


title: Case T-594/19: Action brought on 30 August 2019 – Axactor v EUIPO – Axa (AXACTOR)

text:
               28.10.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 363/26

      Action brought on 30 August 2019 – Axactor v EUIPO – Axa (AXACTOR)
      (Case T-594/19)
      (2019/C 363/35)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Axactor SE (Oslo, Norway) (represented by: D. Stone, A. Dykes, A. Leonelli, Solicitors)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Axa SA (Paris, France)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

         Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark AXACTOR – Application for registration No 15 827 728

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 June 2019 in Case R 479/2018-4

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order EUIPO and intervener to bear their own costs and pay for those of the applicant.

         Plea in law

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


title: Case T-604/19: Action brought on 4 September 2019 – Inova Semiconductors v EUIPO – Venta Servicio LED (ISELED)

text:
               28.10.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 363/30

      Action brought on 4 September 2019 – Inova Semiconductors v EUIPO – Venta Servicio LED (ISELED)
      (Case T-604/19)
      (2019/C 363/39)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Inova Semiconductors GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: T. Schmidpeter, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Venta Servicio LED, SL (Martorell, Spain)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

         Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark ISELED in the colours black, red, orange, yellow, green and blue – International registration designating the European Union No 1 343 583

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 June 2019 in Case R 2149/2018-1

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the plaintiff for the purposes of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law

                  —

                  Infringement of essential procedural requirements in Article 75(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

                  —

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


title: Case T-610/19: Action brought on 9 September 2019 — Deutsche Telekom v Commission

text:
               28.10.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 363/31

      Action brought on 9 September 2019 — Deutsche Telekom v Commission
      (Case T-610/19)
      (2019/C 363/40)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Deutsche Telekom AG (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: P. Linsmeier, U. Soltész, C. von Köckritz and P. Lohs, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  Annul, pursuant to the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, the Commission’s decision of 28 June 2019 rejecting the application for payment of default interest;

                  —

                  order the European Union, represented by the Commission, to pay the applicant financial compensation of EUR 2 580 374,07 for the loss incurred by the applicant because, for the period from 16 January 2015 to 19 February 2019, it was unable to use the amount wrongly paid with the result that it was unable to generate the income that it usually generates with that amount or reduce its capital costs accordingly, or

                  —

                  in the alternative, should the Court dismiss the second head of claim, pay the applicant financial compensation of EUR 1 750 522,83 for the loss incurred by the applicant because the Commission refused to pay it, for the period from 16 January 2015 to 19 February 2019, default interest on the amount of EUR 12 039 019, calculated on the basis of the rate applied by the European Central Bank to its principal refinancing operations, increased by 3.5 percentage points, for the period from 16 January 2015 to 19 February 2019, or — in the further alternative — compensation in the amount of another sum deemed appropriate by the Court, calculated on the basis of a rate of default interest deemed appropriate by the Court;

                  —

                  declare that the amount to be paid by the Commission in accordance with the second and third heads of claim shall, for the period from the delivery of the judgment in the present case until payment in full by the Commission, also bear interest at the rate applied by the European Central Bank to its principal refinancing operations, increased by 3.5 percentage points, or in the alternative at another rate of default interest deemed appropriate by the Court; and

                  —

                  order the Commission and the European Union to pay the applicant’s costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law (application for annulment): By refusing to pay default interest to the applicant, the Commission has infringed its duty to comply with the judgment of 13 December 2018, Deutsche Telekom v Commission (T-827/14, EU:T:2018:930), a duty which was confirmed by the judgment of 5 September 2019, European Union v Guardian Europe (C-447/17 P, EU:C:2019:672), thus infringing the first paragraph of Article 266 TFEU.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law (application for annulment): Infringement of the obligation to state reasons pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU
                  The applicant submits in that regard that the reasons for the decision rejecting the application for payment of default interest are insufficient since that decision fails to explain sufficiently clearly the reason for the rejection of the application. It remains unclear whether the Commission assumes that Article 90 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 (1) also definitively regulates the entitlement to default interest under the first paragraph of Article 266 TFEU and how such an interpretation is compatible with the settled case-law relating to the Commission’s obligation to pay default interest under the first paragraph of Article 266 TFEU.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law (claim for compensation): Loss incurred by the applicant due to it not having been able to use the overpaid amount of the unlawful fine, pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 266, Article 268 and the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU, and, in the alternative, due to the Commission’s refusal to pay default interest

         (1)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 of 29 October 2012 on the rules of application of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (OJ 2012 L 362, p. 1).


title: Case T-611/19: Action brought on 9 September 2019 – Iniciativa ciudadana - Derecho de la UE, derechos de las minorías y democratización de las instituciones españolas v Commission

text:
               28.10.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 363/32

      Action brought on 9 September 2019 – Iniciativa ciudadana - Derecho de la UE, derechos de las minorías y democratización de las instituciones españolas v Commission
      (Case T-611/19)
      (2019/C 363/41)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Applicant: Iniciativa ciudadana - Derecho de la UE, derechos de las minorías y democratización de las instituciones españolas (Spain) (represented by: G. Boye, I. Elbal Sánchez, E. Valcuende Sillero and I. González Martínez, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the General Court should:

                  —

                  annul Commission Decision 2019/1182 of 3 July 2019, refusing the registration of the citizens’ initiative (Iniciativa ciudadana) entitled ‘Derecho de la UE, derechos de las minorías y democratización de las instituciones españolas’ (‘EU law, minority rights and democratisation of Spanish institutions’);

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The present action is directed against the Commission’s decision refusing the registration of the aforementioned citizens’ initiative, in which the Commission was invited to submit a proposal for a legal act of the Union, relating to the following matters: principles of legality and legal certainty, independence and impartiality of the courts, separation of powers, freedom of assembly, freedom of expression, right to free elections, right to liberty and right to equal treatment.
      The contested decision found that the actions proposed in the initiative fell outside the framework of the Commission’s powers to submit a proposal for a legal act of the Union for the purpose of implementing the Treaties.
      In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements

                              —

                              In that connection, it is claimed that the contested decision infringes Article 296(2) TFEU, under which legal acts of the institutions of the European Union are to state the reasons on which they are based, and the second subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on the citizens’ initiative, (1) which states that where it refuses to register a proposed citizens’ initiative, the Commission is to inform the organisers ‘of the reasons for such refusal’.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the Treaty or any legal rule relating to its implementation.

                              —

                              In that connection, it is claimed that the contested decision refusing registration infringes Article 11 TEU, Article 24(1) TFEU and Article 4(2)(a), (b) and (c) of the aforementioned regulation, which implements those provisions of the Treaty.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, based on the nature of the actions proposed in the citizens’ initiative

                              —

                              In that connection, it is claimed that none of the matters covered by the citizens’ initiative manifestly fall outside the framework of the Commission’s powers to submit a proposal for a legal act of the Union for the purpose of implementing the Treaties.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, relating to the compliance of the proposed citizens’ initiative with the EU legal framework

                              —

                              In that connection, it is claimed that it is clear from the wording of Article 4(2)(b) and Article 2(1) of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011, as well as the content of the initiative that is the subject matter of the dispute, that, in the present case, each and every one of the requirements under the applicable regulation has been met and, therefore, the initiative ought to have been registered.

         (1)  OJ 2011 L 65, p. 1.


title: Case T-615/19: Action brought on 12 September 2019 – Point Tec Products Electronic v EUIPO – Compagnie des montres Longines, Francillon (Representation of two extended wings)

text:
               28.10.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 363/33

      Action brought on 12 September 2019 – Point Tec Products Electronic v EUIPO – Compagnie des montres Longines, Francillon (Representation of two extended wings)
      (Case T-615/19)
      (2019/C 363/42)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Point Tec Products Electronic GmbH (Ismaning, Germany) (represented by: D. Wiedemann, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Compagnie des montres Longines, Francillon SA (St-Imier, Switzerland)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

         Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark representing two extended wings – International registration designating the European Union No 1 349 160

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 July 2019 in Case R 2427/2018-5

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 72(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

                  —

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


title: Case T-616/19: Action brought on 12 September 2019 — Katjes Fassin v EUIPO — Haribo The Netherlands & Belgium (WONDERLAND)

text:
               28.10.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 363/34

      Action brought on 12 September 2019 — Katjes Fassin v EUIPO — Haribo The Netherlands & Belgium (WONDERLAND)
      (Case T-616/19)
      (2019/C 363/43)
      Language in which the application was lodged: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Katjes Fassin GmbH & Co. KG (Emmerich am Rhein, Germany) (represented by: T. Schmitz and M. Breuer, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Haribo The Netherlands & Belgium BV (Breda, Netherlands)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

         Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark WONDERLAND — Application No 16 263 295

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 July 2019 in Case R 2164/2019-4

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay the costs.

         Plea in law

                  —

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


title: Case T-242/18: Order of the General Court of 5 September 2019 — VV v Commission

text:
               28.10.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 363/36

      Order of the General Court of 5 September 2019 — VV v Commission
      (Case T-242/18) (1)

      (2019/C 363/45)
      Language of the case: French
      The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 231, 2.7.2018.


title: Case T-244/19: Order of the General Court of 5 September 2019 — Café Camelo v EUIPO — Camel Brand (CAMEL BRAND FOOD PRODUCTS)

text:
               28.10.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 363/37

      Order of the General Court of 5 September 2019 — Café Camelo v EUIPO — Camel Brand (CAMEL BRAND FOOD PRODUCTS)
      (Case T-244/19) (1)

      (2019/C 363/47)
      Language of the case: English
      The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 206, 17.6.2019.


title: Case T-376/19: Order of the General Court of 5 September 2019 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Big Bang (LTC latiendaencasa.es BIG BANG DAY)

text:
               28.10.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 363/37

      Order of the General Court of 5 September 2019 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Big Bang (LTC latiendaencasa.es BIG BANG DAY)
      (Case T-376/19) (1)

      (2019/C 363/48)
      Language of the case: Spanish
      The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 263, 5.8.2019.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT of 26 July 2019 in Case E-1/17 COSTS II The County of Aust-Agder v Konkurrenten.no AS (Taxation of costs — Recoverable costs — Default interest)2019/C 378/06

text:
               7.11.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 378/7

      ORDER OF THE COURT
      of 26 July 2019
      in Case E-1/17 COSTS II
      The County of Aust-Agder v Konkurrenten.no AS

         (Taxation of costs — Recoverable costs — Default interest)

      (2019/C 378/06)
      In Case E-1/17 COSTS II, The County of Aust-Agder v Konkurrenten.no AS — APPLICATION for the taxation of costs awarded by the Court to the County of Aust-Agder in its order of 22 December 2017 in Case E-1/17 Konkurrenten.no v ESA [2017] EFTA Ct. Rep. 989, the Court, composed of Páll Hreinsson, President (Judge-Rapporteur), Bernd Hammermann and Ola Mestad (ad hoc), Judges, gave order of 26 July 2019, the operative part of which is as follows:

                  1.

                  The costs to be paid by Konkurrenten.no AS to the County of Aust-Agder are fixed at NOK 230 589,42.

                  2.

                  Default interest shall be due on the amount from the date of notification of the present order until the date of payment; the applicable interest rate shall be calculated on the basis of the Norwegian Central Bank’s policy rate in force on the first calendar day of the month in which payment is due, increased by three and a half percentage points.


title: Case C-702/19 P: Appeal brought on 20 September 2019 by Silver Plastics GmbH & Co. KG and Johannes Reifenhäuser Holding GmbH & Co. KG against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 11 July 2019 in Case T-582/15, Silver Plastics GmbH & Co. KG and Johannes Reifenhäuser Holding GmbH & Co. KG v European Commission

text:
               11.11.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 383/53

      Appeal brought on 20 September 2019 by Silver Plastics GmbH & Co. KG and Johannes Reifenhäuser Holding GmbH & Co. KG against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 11 July 2019 in Case T-582/15, Silver Plastics GmbH & Co. KG and Johannes Reifenhäuser Holding GmbH & Co. KG v European Commission
      (Case C-702/19 P)
      (2019/C 383/62)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

      Appellants:
      Silver Plastics GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: M. Wirtz and S. Möller, Rechtsanwälte)
      Johannes Reifenhäuser Holding GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: C. Karbaum, Rechtsanwalt)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The appellants claim that the Court of Justice should:

                  1.

                  set aside the judgment under appeal and refer the case back to the General Court for a fresh examination;

                  2.

                  in the alternative, set aside the judgment under appeal and annul the contested decision for the second appellant and reduce the fine imposed on the first appellant;

                  3.

                  in the alternative, set aside the judgment under appeal and reduce the fine imposed jointly and severally on the appellants;

                  4.

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

         Grounds of appeal and main arguments

      By the first ground of appeal, the appellants allege that the General Court infringed Article 6(3) TEU, Article 6(1) ECHR and Article 47(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in conjunction with the principle of directness.
      Contrary to several requests made by the appellants, the General Court infringed procedural rules in failing to summon Mr W, the significant source of the leniency application that was submitted by competitor L and taken into account to the detriment of the appellants, as a witness and to hear him in person. Furthermore, that Court considered all of the statements made by Mr W, submitted by the appellants in writing and contradicting the leniency application, to be lacking in credibility, but without hearing Mr W in that regard. According to the principle of the direct adduction of evidence, the General Court should have summoned Mr W and heard him (directly) in person in that regard.
      By the second ground of appeal, the appellants claim that the General Court infringed the principle of audi alteram partem enshrined in Article 6(1) (in conjunction with Article 6(3)(d)) ECHR.
      The General Court refused the appellants’ request, even after it had been made repeatedly, to directly question Mr W in his capacity as a key source of the leniency application relied on to the detriment of the appellants. It infringed procedural rules in assessing the credibility of the statements made by Mr W in the leniency application without granting a right directly to question him and justified the ruling against the appellants essentially on the basis of those statements without there being any legitimate reasons for restricting the right to question him.
      By the third ground of appeal, the appellants argue that there has been an infringement of the principle of equality of arms pursuant to Article 6(3)(d) ECHR.
      Contrary to several requests made by the appellants, the General Court infringed procedural rules in failing to hear Mr W in his capacity as a witness on the appellants’ behalf even though the Commission had heard Mr W in his capacity as a key source of the leniency application in the previous administrative-fine proceedings without the knowledge and in the absence of the appellants and without preparing a transcript. The refusal to hear in person other witnesses put forward by the appellants to testify on their behalf infringed the principle of equality of arms guaranteed to the appellants.
      By the fourth ground of appeal, the appellants allege an infringement of the duty to state reasons pursuant to Article 36 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, in conjunction with the first paragraph of Article 53 of that statute, because it was not clear to them (i) on what basis the General Court (positively) infers participation in alleged anti-competitive contacts, (ii) why it regarded the exculpatory (written) statements made by Mr W as lacking credibility and (iii) for what specific reasons it refused to grant the right to question him.
      The fifth ground of appeal alleges an infringement of Article 23(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1) due to an excessively far-reaching assumption by the General Court that there was one single and continuous infringement.
      According to the findings of the General Court, the appellants did not participate in anti-competitive conduct in respect of all product areas during the entire assumed period of the infringement. However, the calculation of the fine confirmed by the General Court was based on the turnover of all product areas for the entire assumed period of the infringement.
      By the sixth ground of appeal, the appellants allege an infringement of the first and second sentences of Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003.
      The General Court erred in law in assuming that the appellants formed an economic unit and therefore erred in law in including the turnover of the first appellant in the calculation of the fine despite the fact that the appellants had explained why no decisive influence was exercised by the second appellant over the first appellant, thus refuting the presumption of an economic unit applied by the General Court.
      By the seventh ground of appeal, the appellants allege an error in the calculation of the fine pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003 because, in fixing the amount of the fine, the General Court wrongly included the turnover of a former subsidiary of the second appellant. The fine therefore exceeded the statutory upper limit of 10 % of the turnover of the fined undertaking.

         (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).


title: Case C-632/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 22 August 2019 — Federale Overheidsdienst Financiën, Openbaar Ministerie v Metalen Galler NV, KGH Belgium NV, LW-Idee GmbH

text:
               25.11.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/23

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 22 August 2019 — Federale Overheidsdienst Financiën, Openbaar Ministerie v Metalen Galler NV, KGH Belgium NV, LW-Idee GmbH
      (Case C-632/19)
      (2019/C 399/28)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Referring court

      Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: Federale Overheidsdienst Financiën, Openbaar Ministerie

         Defendants: Metalen Galler NV, KGH Belgium NV, LW-Idee GmbH

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Is Council Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 (1) of 26 January 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China invalid due to the infringement of Article 6(6) and (7) and Article 2(10) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (2) of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community or of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (3) of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community because the Commission did not give Chinese producers/exporters the opportunity, in good time, to take cognisance of the information regarding product types on the basis of which the normal value was established and/or because the Commission, in the context of the calculation of the dumping margin for the products concerned, when comparing the normal value of the products of an Indian producer with the export prices of similar Chinese products, had refused to take into account adjustments related to import duties on raw materials and indirect taxes in the analogue country, India, and to differences in production (costs)?

                  2.

                  Is Council Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 of 26 January 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China invalid due to the infringement of Article 3(2) and (3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community or of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community because, for the purposes of the assessment of injury, the Commission considered the imports from two Chinese companies which had been found not to be involved in dumping to be dumped imports?

                  3.

                  Is Council Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 of 26 January 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China invalid due to the infringement of Article 3(2), (6) and (7) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community or of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community because, in assessing whether EU industry exports contributed to the injury suffered by that industry, the Commission relied on information relating to producers who are not domestic producers?

                  4.

                  Is Council Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 of 26 January 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China invalid due to the infringement of Article 19(1) and (2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community or of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community because the Commission failed to ensure that the two domestic (Italian) producers provided adequate explanations as to the reasons why it was not possible to provide a summary of confidential information?

                  5.

                  Does Council Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 of 26 January 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China infringe Article 6(6) and (7) and Article 2(10) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community due to the Commission’s delay in communicating product information, thereby infringing the interests of Chinese producers/exporters?

         (1)  OJ 2009 L 29, p. 1.

         (2)  OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51.

         (3)  OJ 1996 L 56, p. 1.


title: Case T-19/17: Order of the General Court of 17 September 2019 — Fastweb v Commission

text:
               25.11.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/103

      Order of the General Court of 17 September 2019 — Fastweb v Commission
      (Case T-19/17) (1)

      (2019/C 399/122)
      Language of the case: Italian
      The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 70, 6.3.2017.


title: Case T-250/18: Order of the General Court of 12 September 2019 — RATP v Commission

text:
               25.11.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/103

      Order of the General Court of 12 September 2019 — RATP v Commission
      (Case T-250/18) (1)

      (2019/C 399/123)
      Language of the case: French
      The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 206, 17.6.2019.


title: Case T-306/18: Order of the General Court of 20 September 2019 — Hungary v Commission

text:
               25.11.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/104

      Order of the General Court of 20 September 2019 — Hungary v Commission
      (Case T-306/18) (1)

      (2019/C 399/124)
      Language of the case: Hungarian
      The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 268, 30.7.2018.


title: Case T-19/19: Order of the General Court of 17 September 2019 — Fastweb v Commission

text:
               25.11.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/104

      Order of the General Court of 17 September 2019 — Fastweb v Commission
      (Case T-19/19) (1)

      (2019/C 399/125)
      Language of the case: Italian
      The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 82, 4.3.2019.


title: Case C-616/17: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 1 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal correctionnel de Foix — France) — Criminal proceedings against Mathieu Blaise and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Placing of plant protection products on the market — Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 — Validity — Precautionary principle — Definition of the concept of ‘active substance’ — Combination of active substances — Reliability of the assessment procedure — Public access to the dossier — Tests of long-term toxicity — Pesticides — Glyphosate)

text:
               9.12.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 413/2

      Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 1 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal correctionnel de Foix — France) — Criminal proceedings against Mathieu Blaise and Others
      (Case C-616/17) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Placing of plant protection products on the market - Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 - Validity - Precautionary principle - Definition of the concept of ‘active substance’ - Combination of active substances - Reliability of the assessment procedure - Public access to the dossier - Tests of long-term toxicity - Pesticides - Glyphosate)
      (2019/C 413/02)
      Language of the case: French

         Referring court

      Tribunal correctionnel de Foix

         Parties in the main proceedings

      Mathieu Blaise, Sabrina Dauzet, Alain Feliu, Marie Foray, Sylvestre Ganter, Dominique Masset, Ambroise Monsarrat, Sandrine Muscat, Jean-Charles Sutra, Blanche Yon, Kevin Leo-Pol Fred Perrin, Germain Yves Dedieu, Olivier Godard, Kevin Pao Donovan Schachner, Laura Dominique Chantal Escande, Nicolas Benoit Rey, Eric Malek Benromdan, Olivier Eric Labrunie, Simon Joseph Jeremie Boucard, Alexis Ganter, Pierre André Garcia

         intervener: Espace Émeraude

         Operative part of the judgment

      An examination of the questions referred for a preliminary ruling has revealed nothing capable of affecting the validity of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC.

         (1)  OJ C 22, 22.1.2018.


title: Case C-621/17: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — Gyula Kiss v CIB Bank Zrt., Emil Kiss, Gyuláné Kiss (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Directive 93/13/EEC — Article 3(1) — Assessment of the unfairness of contractual terms — Article 4(2) — Article 5 — Requirement that contractual terms be drafted in plain and intelligible language — Terms requiring the payment of costs for unspecified services)

text:
               9.12.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 413/3

      Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — Gyula Kiss v CIB Bank Zrt., Emil Kiss, Gyuláné Kiss
      (Case C-621/17) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Directive 93/13/EEC - Article 3(1) - Assessment of the unfairness of contractual terms - Article 4(2) - Article 5 - Requirement that contractual terms be drafted in plain and intelligible language - Terms requiring the payment of costs for unspecified services)
      (2019/C 413/03)
      Language of the case: Hungarian

         Referring court

      Kúria

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Gyula Kiss

         Defendants: CIB Bank Zrt., Emil Kiss, Gyuláné Kiss

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Article 4(2) and Article 5 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that the requirement that a contractual term be drafted in plain, intelligible language does not require that non-individually negotiated contractual terms in a loan contract concluded with a consumer, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, that specify the exact amount of management charges and of a disbursement commission to be borne by the consumer, their method of calculation and the time when they have to be paid, also have to indicate all of the services provided in return for the amounts concerned;

                  2.

                  Article 3(1) of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that a contractual term such as that at issue in the main proceedings in relation to charges for the management of a loan contract, when it cannot be unequivocally determined what specific services are provided in return for those charges, does not in principle cause, contrary to the requirement of good faith, a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract to the detriment of the consumer.

         (1)  OJ C 22, 22.1.2018.


title: Case C-673/17: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 1 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband eV v Planet49 GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 95/46/EC — Directive 2002/58/EC — Regulation (EU) 2016/679 — Processing of personal data and protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector — Cookies — Concept of consent of the data subject — Declaration of consent by means of a pre-ticked checkbox)

text:
               9.12.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 413/4

      Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 1 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband eV v Planet49 GmbH
      (Case C-673/17) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 95/46/EC - Directive 2002/58/EC - Regulation (EU) 2016/679 - Processing of personal data and protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector - Cookies - Concept of consent of the data subject - Declaration of consent by means of a pre-ticked checkbox)
      (2019/C 413/04)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Bundesgerichtshof

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband eV

         Defendant: Planet49 GmbH

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Article 2(f) and of Article 5(3) of Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications), as amended by Directive 2009/136/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009, read in conjunction with Article 2(h) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data and Article 4(11) and Article 6(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46 (General Data Protection Regulation), must be interpreted as meaning that the consent referred to in those provisions is not validly constituted if, in the form of cookies, the storage of information or access to information already stored in a website user’s terminal equipment is permitted by way of a pre-checked checkbox which the user must deselect to refuse his or her consent.

                  2.

                  Article 2(f) and Article 5(3) of Directive 2002/58, as amended by Directive 2009/136, read in conjunction with Article 2(h) of Directive 95/46 and Article 4(11) and Article 6(1)(a) of Regulation 2016/679, are not to be interpreted differently according to whether or not the information stored or accessed on a website user’s terminal equipment is personal data within the meaning of Directive 95/46 and Regulation 2016/679.

                  3.

                  Article 5(3) of Directive 2002/58, as amended by Directive 2009/136, must be interpreted as meaning that the information that the service provider must give to a website user includes the duration of the operation of cookies and whether or not third parties may have access to those cookies.

         (1)  OJ C 112, 26.3.2018.


title: Case C-18/18: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Eva Glawischnig-Piesczek v Facebook Ireland Limited (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Information society — Free movement of services — Directive 2000/31/EC — Liability of intermediary service providers — Article 14(1) and (3) — Hosting services provider — Possibility of requiring the service provider to terminate or prevent an infringement — Article 18(1) — Personal, material and territorial limits on the scope of an injunction — Article 15(1) — No general obligation to monitor)

text:
               9.12.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 413/5

      Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Eva Glawischnig-Piesczek v Facebook Ireland Limited
      (Case C-18/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Information society - Free movement of services - Directive 2000/31/EC - Liability of intermediary service providers - Article 14(1) and (3) - Hosting services provider - Possibility of requiring the service provider to terminate or prevent an infringement - Article 18(1) - Personal, material and territorial limits on the scope of an injunction - Article 15(1) - No general obligation to monitor)
      (2019/C 413/05)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Oberster Gerichtshof

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Eva Glawischnig-Piesczek

         Defendant: Facebook Ireland Limited

         Operative part of the judgment

      Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’), in particular Article 15(1), must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude a court of a Member State from:

                  —

                  ordering a host provider to remove information which it stores, the content of which is identical to the content of information which was previously declared to be unlawful, or to block access to that information, irrespective of who requested the storage of that information;

                  —

                  ordering a host provider to remove information which it stores, the content of which is equivalent to the content of information which was previously declared to be unlawful, or to block access to that information, provided that the monitoring of and search for the information concerned by such an injunction are limited to information conveying a message the content of which remains essentially unchanged compared with the content which gave rise to the finding of illegality and containing the elements specified in the injunction, and provided that the differences in the wording of that equivalent content, compared with the wording characterising the information which was previously declared to be illegal, are not such as to require the host provider to carry out an independent assessment of that content, and

                  —

                  ordering a host provider to remove information covered by the injunction or to block access to that information worldwide within the framework of the relevant international law.

         (1)  OJ C 104, 19.3.2018.


title: Case C-42/18: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt Trier v Cardpoint GmbH, successor in law to Moneybox Deutschland GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC — Exemptions — Article 13B(d)(3) — Transactions concerning payments — Services supplied by a company to a bank relating to the operation of cash points)

text:
               9.12.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 413/6

      Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt Trier v Cardpoint GmbH, successor in law to Moneybox Deutschland GmbH
      (Case C-42/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC - Exemptions - Article 13B(d)(3) - Transactions concerning payments - Services supplied by a company to a bank relating to the operation of cash points)
      (2019/C 413/06)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Bundesfinanzhof

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Finanzamt Trier

         Defendant: Cardpoint GmbH, successor in law to Moneybox Deutschland GmbH

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 13B(d)(3) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment must be interpreted as meaning that services supplied to a bank operating cashpoints, consisting in operating and maintaining those cashpoints, replenishing them, installing computer hardware and software necessary to read the data from bank cards, sending a cash withdrawal authorisation request to the bank which issued the bank card used, providing the cash requested and registering withdrawal transactions, do not constitute a transaction concerning payments which is exempt from value added tax for the purposes of that provision.

         (1)  OJ C 152, 30.4.2018.


title: Case C-70/18: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid v A, B, P (Reference for a preliminary ruling — EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Decision No 2/76 — Article 7 — Decision No 1/80 — Article 13 — ‘Standstill’ clauses — New restriction — Collection, registration and retention of biometric data of Turkish nationals in a central filing system — Overriding reasons of public interest — Objective of preventing and combating identity and document fraud — Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Right to respect for private life — Right to the protection of personal data — Proportionality)

text:
               9.12.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 413/6

      Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid v A, B, P
      (Case C-70/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Decision No 2/76 - Article 7 - Decision No 1/80 - Article 13 - ‘Standstill’ clauses - New restriction - Collection, registration and retention of biometric data of Turkish nationals in a central filing system - Overriding reasons of public interest - Objective of preventing and combating identity and document fraud - Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Right to respect for private life - Right to the protection of personal data - Proportionality)
      (2019/C 413/07)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Referring court

      Raad van State

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

         Other parties: A, B, P

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association, adopted by the Association Council set up by the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey, signed in Ankara on 12 September 1963 by the Republic of Turkey, on the one hand, and by the Member States of the European Economic Community (EEC) and the Community, on the other, and concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Decision 64/732/EEC of 23 December 1963 must be interpreted as meaning that a national rule, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which makes the issuance of a temporary residence permit to third-country nationals, including Turkish nationals, conditional upon the collection, recording and retention of their biometric data in a central filing system does constitute a ‘new restriction’ within the meaning of that provision. Such a restriction is, however, justified by the objective of preventing and combating identity and document fraud.

         (1)  OJ C 161, 7.5.2018.


title: Case C-93/18: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland — United Kingdom) — Ermira Bajratari v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Citizenship of the Union — Directive 2004/38/EC — Right of residence of a third-country national who is a direct relative in the ascending line of Union citizen minors — Article 7(1)(b) — Condition of sufficient resources — Resources formed by income from employment occupied without a residence card and work permit)

text:
               9.12.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 413/7

      Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland — United Kingdom) — Ermira Bajratari v Secretary of State for the Home Department
      (Case C-93/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Citizenship of the Union - Directive 2004/38/EC - Right of residence of a third-country national who is a direct relative in the ascending line of Union citizen minors - Article 7(1)(b) - Condition of sufficient resources - Resources formed by income from employment occupied without a residence card and work permit)
      (2019/C 413/08)
      Language of the case: English

         Referring court

      Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Ermira Bajratari

         Defendant: Secretary of State for the Home Department

         Intervener: Aire Centre

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 7(1)(b) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that a Union citizen minor has sufficient resources not to become an unreasonable burden on the social assistance system of the host Member State during his period of residence, despite his resources being derived from income obtained from the unlawful employment of his father, a third-country national without a residence card and work permit.

         (1)  OJ C 152, 30.4.2018.


title: Joined Cases C-152/18 P and C-153/18 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 October 2019 — Crédit Mutuel Arkéa (C-152/18 P) Crédit Mutuel Arkéa (C-153/18 P) v European Central Bank, European Commission (Appeal — Economic and monetary policy — Article 127(6) TFEU — Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 — Article 4(1)(g) — Prudential supervision of credit institutions on a consolidated basis — Regulation (EU) No 468/2014 — Article 2(21)(c) — Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 — Article 10 — Supervised group — Institutions permanently affiliated to a central body)

text:
               9.12.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 413/8

      Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 October 2019 — Crédit Mutuel Arkéa (C-152/18 P) Crédit Mutuel Arkéa (C-153/18 P) v European Central Bank, European Commission
      (Joined Cases C-152/18 P and C-153/18 P) (1)

      (Appeal - Economic and monetary policy - Article 127(6) TFEU - Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 - Article 4(1)(g) - Prudential supervision of credit institutions on a consolidated basis - Regulation (EU) No 468/2014 - Article 2(21)(c) - Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 - Article 10 - Supervised group - Institutions permanently affiliated to a central body)
      (2019/C 413/09)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

      (Case C-152/18 P)

         Appellant: Crédit mutuel Arkéa (represented by: H. Savoie, avocat)

         Other parties to the proceedings: European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: K. Lackhoff, R. Bax and C. Olivier, acting as Agents, and by P. Honoré, avocat), European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, K.-P. Wojcik and A. Steiblytė, acting as Agents)

         Intervener in support of the other parties: Confédération nationale du Crédit mutuel (represented by: M. Grégoire and C. De Jonghe, avocats)
      (Case C-153/19 P)

         Appellant: Crédit Mutuel Arkéa (represented by: H. Savoie, avocat)

         Other parties to the proceedings: European Central Bank (represented by: K. Lackhoff, R. Bax and C. Olivier, acting as Agents, and by P. Honoré, avocat), European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, K.-P. Wojcik and A. Steiblytė, acting as Agents)

         Intervener in support of the other parties: Confédération nationale du Crédit mutuel (represented by: C. De Jonghe and M. Grégoire, avocats)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the appeals;

                  2.

                  Orders Crédit mutuel Arkéa to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 161, 7.5.2018.


title: Case C-197/18: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Wien — Austria) — Proceedings brought by Wasserleitungsverband Nördliches Burgenland, Robert Prandl, Gemeinde Zillingdorf (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Directive 91/676/EEC — Protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources — Objective of reducing pollution — Waters affected by pollution — Maximum nitrate level of 50 mg/l — Action programmes adopted by the Member States — Rights of individuals to have such a programme amended — Locus standi before the national authorities and courts)

text:
               9.12.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 413/9

      Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Wien — Austria) — Proceedings brought by Wasserleitungsverband Nördliches Burgenland, Robert Prandl, Gemeinde Zillingdorf
      (Case C-197/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Directive 91/676/EEC - Protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources - Objective of reducing pollution - Waters affected by pollution - Maximum nitrate level of 50 mg/l - Action programmes adopted by the Member States - Rights of individuals to have such a programme amended - Locus standi before the national authorities and courts)
      (2019/C 413/10)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Verwaltungsgericht Wien

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: Wasserleitungsverband Nördliches Burgenland, Robert Prandl, Gemeinde Zillingdorf

         Intervener: Bundesministerum für Nachhaltigkeit und Tourismus, formerly Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 288 TFEU and Article 5(4) and (5) of, and Annex I A, point 2 to, Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources must be interpreted as meaning that, provided that the discharge of nitrogen compounds of agricultural origin significantly contributes to the pollution of the groundwaters in question, natural and legal persons, such as the applicants in the main proceedings, should be in a position to require the competent national authorities to amend an existing action programme or adopt additional measures or reinforced actions, provided for in Article 5(5) of that directive, as long as the nitrate levels in the groundwaters exceed or could exceed, in the absence of such measures, 50 mg/l at one or more measuring points within the meaning of Article 5(6) of that directive.

         (1)  OJ C 268, 30.7.2018.


title: Case C-208/18: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud — Czech Republic) — Jana Petruchová v FIBO Group Holdings Limited (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Article 17(1) — Jurisdiction over consumer contracts — Notion of ‘consumer’ — Natural person carrying out transactions on the international exchange market through the intermediary of a brokerage company — Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 (Rome I) — Directive 2004/39/EC — Notion of ‘retail client’)

text:
               9.12.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 413/10

      Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud — Czech Republic) — Jana Petruchová v FIBO Group Holdings Limited
      (Case C-208/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Article 17(1) - Jurisdiction over consumer contracts - Notion of ‘consumer’ - Natural person carrying out transactions on the international exchange market through the intermediary of a brokerage company - Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 (Rome I) - Directive 2004/39/EC - Notion of ‘retail client’)
      (2019/C 413/11)
      Language of the case: Czech

         Referring court

      Nejvyšší soud

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Jana Petruchová

         Defendant: FIBO Group Holdings Limited

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 17(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that a natural person who, under a contract such as a CfD concluded with a brokerage company, carries out transactions on the international FOREX (foreign exchange) market through that company, must be classified as a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of that provision if the conclusion of that contract does not fall within the scope of that person’s professional activity, which it is for the national court to ascertain. For the purpose of that classification, on the one hand, factors such as the value of transactions carried out under contracts such as financial contracts for differences, the extent of the risks of financial loss associated with the conclusion of such contracts, any knowledge or expertise that person has in the field of financial instruments or his or her active conduct in the context of such transactions are, as such, in principle irrelevant, and, on the other, the fact that the financial instruments do not fall within the scope of Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) or that that person is a ‘retail client’ within the meaning of Article 4(1)(12) of Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments, amending Council Directives 85/611/EEC and 93/6/EEC and Directive 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 93/22/EEC is, as such, in principle irrelevant.

         (1)  OJ C 200, 11.6.2018.


title: Case C-260/18: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie — Poland) — Kamil Dziubak, Justyna Dziubak v Raiffeisen Bank International AG, prowadzący działalność w Polsce w formie oddziału pod nazwą Raiffeisen Bank International AG Oddział w Polsce, formerly Raiffeisen Bank Polska SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 93/13/EEC — Consumer contracts — Unfair terms — Mortgage loan indexed to a foreign currency — Term relating to arrangement of the exchange rate between the currencies — Effects of a declaration that a term is unfair — Whether it is possible for the court to remedy unfair terms by having recourse to general terms of civil law — Assessment of the consumer’s interests — Continued existence of the contract without unfair terms)

text:
               9.12.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 413/11

      Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie — Poland) — Kamil Dziubak, Justyna Dziubak v Raiffeisen Bank International AG, prowadzący działalność w Polsce w formie oddziału pod nazwą Raiffeisen Bank International AG Oddział w Polsce, formerly Raiffeisen Bank Polska SA
      (Case C-260/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 93/13/EEC - Consumer contracts - Unfair terms - Mortgage loan indexed to a foreign currency - Term relating to arrangement of the exchange rate between the currencies - Effects of a declaration that a term is unfair - Whether it is possible for the court to remedy unfair terms by having recourse to general terms of civil law - Assessment of the consumer’s interests - Continued existence of the contract without unfair terms)
      (2019/C 413/12)
      Language of the case: Polish

         Referring court

      Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: Kamil Dziubak, Justyna Dziubak

         Defendant: Raiffeisen Bank International AG, prowadzący działalność w Polsce w formie oddziału pod nazwą Raiffeisen Bank International AG Oddział w Polsce, formerly Raiffeisen Bank Polska SA

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as not precluding a national court, after finding that certain terms of a loan agreement indexed to a foreign currency and subject to an interest rate directly linked to the interbank rate of the currency concerned are unfair, from taking the view, in accordance with its domestic law, that that contract cannot continue in existence without those terms because the effect of their removal would be to alter the nature of the main subject matter of the contract.

                  2.

                  Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that, first, the consequences for the consumer of a contract being annulled in its entirety, as referred to in the judgment of 30 April 2014, Kásler and Káslerné Rábai (C-26/13, EU:C:2014:282), must be assessed in the light of the existing or foreseeable circumstances at the time when the dispute arose, and that, second, for the purposes of that assessment, the wishes expressed by the consumer in that regard are the decisive factor.

                  3.

                  Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as precluding gaps in a contract caused by the removal of the unfair terms contained in that contract from being filled solely on the basis of national provisions of a general nature which provide that the effects expressed in a legal transaction are to be supplemented, inter alia, by the effects arising from the principle of equity or from established customs, which are neither supplementary provisions nor provisions applicable where the parties to the contract so agree.

                  4.

                  Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as precluding unfair terms contained in a contract from being upheld where their removal would entail that contract being annulled and the court takes the view that that annulment would give rise to unfavourable effects for the consumer, if the latter has not consented to them being upheld.

         (1)  OJ C 259, 23.7.2018.


title: Case C-267/18: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel București — Romania) — Delta Antrepriză de Construcții și Montaj 93 SA v Compania Națională de Administrare a Infrastructurii Rutiere SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public Procurement — Public procurement procedure — Directive 2014/24/EU — Article 57(4) — Optional grounds for exclusion — Exclusion of an economic operator from participating in a public procurement procedure — Early termination of a prior contract on account of partial subcontracting — Concept of ‘significant or persistent deficiencies’ — Scope)

text:
               9.12.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 413/12

      Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel București — Romania) — Delta Antrepriză de Construcții și Montaj 93 SA v Compania Națională de Administrare a Infrastructurii Rutiere SA
      (Case C-267/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public Procurement - Public procurement procedure - Directive 2014/24/EU - Article 57(4) - Optional grounds for exclusion - Exclusion of an economic operator from participating in a public procurement procedure - Early termination of a prior contract on account of partial subcontracting - Concept of ‘significant or persistent deficiencies’ - Scope)
      (2019/C 413/13)
      Language of the case: Romanian

         Referring court

      Curtea de Apel București

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Delta Antrepriză de Construcții și Montaj 93 SA

         Defendant: Compania Națională de Administrare a Infrastructurii Rutiere SA

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 57(4)(g) of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC must be interpreted as meaning that the subcontracting, by an economic operator, of part of the works under a prior public contract, decided upon without the contracting authority’s authorisation and which led to the early termination of that contract, constitutes a significant or persistent deficiency shown in the performance of a substantive requirement under that public contract, within the meaning of that provision, and is therefore capable of justifying that economic operator being excluded from participation in a subsequent public procurement procedure if, after conducting its own evaluation of the integrity and reliability of the economic operator concerned by the early termination of the prior public contract, the contracting authority which organises that subsequent procurement procedure considers that such subcontracting entails breaking the relationship of trust with the economic operator in question. Before deciding such an exclusion, the contracting authority must however, in accordance with Article 57(6) of that directive, read in conjunction with recital 102 thereof, allow that economic operator the opportunity to set out the corrective measures adopted by it further to the early termination of the prior public contract.

         (1)  OJ C 249, 16.7.2018.


title: Case C-272/18: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Verein für Konsumenteninformation v TVP Treuhand- und Verwaltungsgesellschaft für Publikumsfonds mbH & Co KG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Law applicable to contractual obligations — Exclusion of company law from the scope of the Rome Convention and of Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 (Rome I) — Trust agreement concluded between a professional and a consumer for the management of shares in a limited partnership)

text:
               9.12.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 413/13

      Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Verein für Konsumenteninformation v TVP Treuhand- und Verwaltungsgesellschaft für Publikumsfonds mbH & Co KG
      (Case C-272/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Law applicable to contractual obligations - Exclusion of company law from the scope of the Rome Convention and of Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 (Rome I) - Trust agreement concluded between a professional and a consumer for the management of shares in a limited partnership)
      (2019/C 413/14)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Oberster Gerichtshof

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Verein für Konsumenteninformation

         Defendant: TVP Treuhand- und Verwaltungsgesellschaft für Publikumsfonds mbH & Co KG

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Article 1(2)(e) of the Convention on the law applicable to contractual relations, opened for signature in Rome on 19 June 1980, and Article 1(2)(f) of Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) must be interpreted as not excluding from the scope of that convention or of that regulation contractual obligations, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which are based on a trust agreement for the purposes of administering shares in a limited partnership.

                  2.

                  Article 5(4)(b) of the Convention on the law applicable to contractual relations and Article 6(4)(a) of Regulation No 593/2008 must be interpreted as meaning that a trust agreement pursuant to which the services owed to a consumer must be provided in the country of the consumer’s habitual residence at a distance, from another country, do not fall within the scope of the exclusion in those provisions.

                  3.

                  Article 3(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that a term in a trust agreement concluded between a professional and a consumer for the management of shares in a limited partnership, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which has not been individually negotiated and according to which the applicable law is the law of the Member State of the partnership’s seat, is unfair, within the meaning of that provision, where it leads the consumer into error by giving him the impression that only the law of that Member State applies to the contract, without informing him that under Article 5(2) of the Convention on the law applicable to contractual relations and Article 6(2) of Regulation No 593/2008 he also enjoys the protection of the mandatory provisions of the national law that would be applicable in the absence of that term.

         (1)  OJ C 221, 25.6.2018.


title: Case C-342/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 December 2019 — Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo S.A. v European Commission, Federal Republic of Germany (Appeal — Internal market in natural gas — Directive 2009/73/EC — Article 32 — Third-party access — Article 41(6), (8) and (10) — Rules on tariffs — Article 36 — Application for an exemption — Rules governing the operation of the OPAL pipeline — National regulatory authority — Exemption decision — Request for modification — European Commission Decision — Action for annulment — Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU — Admissibility — Decision of no direct concern to the appellant)

text:
               3.2.2020

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 36/4

      Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 December 2019 — Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo S.A. v European Commission, Federal Republic of Germany
      (Case C-342/18 P) (1)

      (Appeal - Internal market in natural gas - Directive 2009/73/EC - Article 32 - Third-party access - Article 41(6), (8) and (10) - Rules on tariffs - Article 36 - Application for an exemption - Rules governing the operation of the OPAL pipeline - National regulatory authority - Exemption decision - Request for modification - European Commission Decision - Action for annulment - Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU - Admissibility - Decision of no direct concern to the appellant)
      (2020/C 36/05)
      Language of the case: Polish

         Parties

         Appellant: Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo S.A. (represented initially by M. Jeżewski, adwokat, and subsequently E. Buczkowska, radca prawny and W. Sadowski, adwokat)

         Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: K. Herrmann and O. Beynet, acting as Agents), Federal Republic of Germany (represented initially by T. Henze, and subsequently by J. Möller, acting as Agents)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the appeal;

                  2.

                  Orders Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo S.A. to pay its own costs and bear those incurred by the European Commission;

                  3.

                  Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 276, 6.8.2018.


title: Case C-593/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 28 November 2019 — ABB Ltd, ABB AB v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for underground and submarine power cables — Market allocation in connection with projects — Burden of proof — Presumption of innocence — Principle of equal treatment)

text:
               3.2.2020

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 36/11

      Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 28 November 2019 — ABB Ltd, ABB AB v European Commission
      (Case C-593/18 P) (1)

      (Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for underground and submarine power cables - Market allocation in connection with projects - Burden of proof - Presumption of innocence - Principle of equal treatment)
      (2020/C 36/14)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellants: ABB Ltd, ABB AB (represented by: I. Vandenborre, M. Frese, advocaten, and S. Dionnet, advocat)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: H. van Vliet, I. Zaloguin and I. Rogalski, acting as Agents)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Sets aside point 1 of the operative part of the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 12 July 2018, ABB v Commission (T-445/14, not published, EU:T:2018:449), in so far as the General Court dismissed ABB Ltd and ABB AB’s actions for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 final of 2 April 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39610 — Power cables), in so far as that decision finds those companies liable for an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and of Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992 in respect of a collective refusal to supply accessories for underground power cables with voltages from 110 kV and below 220 kV, as well as point 2 of the operative part of that judgment;

                  2.

                  Dismisses the appeal as to the remainder;

                  3.

                  Annuls Decision C(2014) 2139 final in so far as it finds ABB Ltd and ABB AB liable for an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and of Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992 in respect of a collective refusal to supply accessories for underground power cables with voltages from 110 kV and below 220 kV;

                  4.

                  Orders ABB Ltd, ABB AB and the European Commission to bear their own costs at first instance and on appeal.

         (1)  OJ C 436, 3.12.2018.