title: Case C-55/19 P: Appeal brought on 25 January 2019 by Prosegur Compañía de Seguridad, S.A. against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 15 November 2018 in Case T-406/11 Prosegur Compañía de Seguridad v Commission

text:
               25.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/34

      Appeal brought on 25 January 2019 by Prosegur Compañía de Seguridad, S.A. against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 15 November 2018 in Case T-406/11 Prosegur Compañía de Seguridad v Commission
      (Case C-55/19 P)
      (2019/C 112/40)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Appellant: Prosegur Compañía de Seguridad, S.A. (represented by: J. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro, R. Calvo Salinero and A. Lamadrid de Pablo, abogados)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The appellant submits that the Court should:

                  —

                  Set aside the judgment of the General Court of 15 November 2018;

                  —

                  Uphold the application for annulment and definitively annul the contested decision; and

                  —

                  Order the European Commission to pay the costs.

         Grounds of appeal and main arguments

      On 15 November 2018, the General Court gave judgment in Case T-406/11, Prosegur Compañía de Seguridad v European Commission, (1) against which this appeal is brought. The judgment dismissed the appellant’s action against the European Commission’s decision of 12 January 2011, (2) on ‘financial goodwill’ regulated by Article 12.5 of the Spanish Ley de Impuesto sobre Sociedades (Law on Corporation Tax).
      In support of its appeal, the appellant relies on a single ground of appeal, alleging that, in the judgment under appeal, the General Court erred in law in its interpretation of Article 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), in relation to the concept of ‘selectivity’.
      In particular, it is submitted that the General Court erred:

                  —

                  In determining the reference system at the first stage of the selectivity analysis;

                  —

                  In determining the objective forming the basis for comparing the separate legal and factual situations at the second stage of the selectivity analysis;

                  —

                  Consequently, the General Court also erred in the attribution of the burden of proof and the application of the principle of proportionality;

                  —

                  In the alternative, in its examination relating to the supposed lack of proof of a causal link between the companies’ inability to merge abroad and the acquisition of holdings abroad; and

                  —

                  In the alternative, in ruling out the severability of the measure according to the control percentage;

                  —

                  In addition to maintaining a legally incorrect line of reasoning, the General Court substituted its own reasoning for that of the Commission’s decision in relation to a number of the abovementioned points, thus giving rise to further errors of law.

         (1)  Judgment of 15 November 2018, Prosegur Compañía de Seguridad v Commission (T-406/11, not published, EU:T:2018:793).

         (2)  Commission Decision 2011/282/EU of 12 January 2011 on the tax amortisation of financial goodwill for foreign shareholding acquisitions C 45/07 (ex NN 51/07, ex CP 9/07) implemented by Spain (OJ 2011 L 135, p. 1).


title: Case C-63/19: Action brought on 29 January 2019 — European Commission v Italian Republic

text:
               25.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/35

      Action brought on 29 January 2019 — European Commission v Italian Republic
      (Case C-63/19)
      (2019/C 112/41)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and F. Tomat, acting as Agents)

         Defendant: Italian Republic

         Form of order sought

      The Commission claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  find that, by applying a reduction to rates of excise duty on the basis of the regional legislation adopted by the Friuli-Venezia Giulia Region, which provides for a contribution system in respect of petrol and gas oil used as motor fuel, in connection with the sale of such products to residents of the Friuli-Venezia Giulia Region, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4 and 19 of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity; (1)

                  —

                  order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The regional legislation adopted by the Friuli-Venezia Giulia region has introduced a contribution system in respect of petrol and gas oil used as motor fuel, in connection with the sale of such products to residents of the Friuli-Venezia Giulia Region. The system provides, in essence, that, at the time the fuel is purchased from the pump, service station operators are to pay out a fixed amount (per litre) reducing the price owed for the fuel. The regional administrative authority is to repay the service station operators the amount paid out on the purchases of fuel made by the recipients.
      The scheme of Directive 2003/96/EC, which has restructured the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity, requires that throughout the whole territory of every Member State there must be a single level of taxation for each product and for each use. That principle derives from the general scheme of the directive, and in particular from what is set out in recitals 5 and 15, from the wording of the provisions of that directive, and from a systematic interpretation of all those provisions. It is possible to derogate from the principle whereby each Member State must provide for a single level of taxation for each product and for each use only in the cases expressly provided for in that directive. Directive 2003/96 lays down a series of provisions enabling the Member States to apply reductions, exemptions or differentiations to the level of taxation in respect of specific products or specific uses, in particular in Articles 5, 7, 15, 16 and 17 of that directive and in Articles 18 and 19 thereof. Such reductions, exemptions or differentiations may be implemented by the Member States using the methods set out in Article 6 of that directive, which provides that Member States are to be free to give effect to exemptions or reductions directly, by means of a differentiated rate or by refunding all or part of the amount of taxation.
      According to the Commission, the case at hand constitutes a reduction in the rates of excise duty on motor fuel not permitted by Directive 2003/96/EC on the taxation of energy products.
      The Commission therefore considers that in the case at hand the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4 and 19 of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity.

         (1)  OJ 2003 L 283, p. 51.


title: Case C-64/19 P: Appeal brought on 29 January 2019 by the Kingdom of Spain against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 15 November 2018 in Case T-219/10 RENV World Duty Free Group v Commission

text:
               25.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/36

      Appeal brought on 29 January 2019 by the Kingdom of Spain against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 15 November 2018 in Case T-219/10 RENV World Duty Free Group v Commission
      (Case C-64/19 P)
      (2019/C 112/42)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Appellant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. A. Sampol Pucurull, acting as Agent)

         Other parties to the proceedings: World Duty Free Group, S.A., previously Autogrill España, SA, and European Commission

         Interveners in support of the applicant at first instance: Federal Republic of Germany, and Ireland

         Form of order sought

      The appellant submits that the Court should:

                  —

                  Uphold the present appeal and set aside the judgment of the General Court of 15 November 2018, in Case T-219/10 RENV World Duty Free Group, S.A. v European Commission; (1)

                  —

                  Annul Article 1(1) of the contested decision in so far as Commission Decision 2011/5/EC of 28 October 2009 on the tax amortisation of financial goodwill for foreign shareholding acquisitions C 45/07 (ex NN 51/07, ex CP 9/07) implemented by Spain (2) considers that the tax measure at issue constitutes State aid; and

                  —

                  Order the European Commission to pay the costs.

         Grounds of appeal and main arguments

      The appeal is founded on a single ground of appeal which ought to lead to the setting aside of the judgment under appeal. Spain submits that the General Court erred in law, for the purposes of Article 58 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, in its erroneous interpretation of Article 107(1) of the Treaty (TFEU) and, in particular, the concept of the selectivity of State aid contained in that article. The single ground of appeal can be divided into four parts:

                  —

                  In the first place, Spain submits that the General Court erred in determining the reference system for the tax measure, which does not coincide with that contained in the contested decision;

                  —

                  In the second place, Spain submits that the General Court erred in law by failing to find that the tax treatment of financial goodwill constitutes a general measure or an independent or specific framework;

                  —

                  In the third place, Spain maintains that the General Court also erred in law in incorrectly defining the objective of the reference framework and in incorrectly conducting the comparison required by the judgment given on appeal in World Duty Free; (3)

                  —

                  In the fourth place, the error committed in identifying a constituent element of the reference framework entails an error of law in the attribution of the burden of proof.

         (1)  Judgment of 15 November 2018, World Duty Free Group v Commission (T-219/10 RENV, EU:T:2018:784).

         (2)  OJ 2011 L 7, p. 48.

         (3)  Judgment of 21 December 2016, Commission v World Duty Free Group and Others (C-20/15 P and C-21/16 P, EU:C:2016:981).


title: Case C-65/19 P: Appeal brought on 29 January 2019 by the Kingdom of Spain against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 15 November 2018 in Case T-399/11 RENV Banco Santander and Santusa v Commission

text:
               25.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/37

      Appeal brought on 29 January 2019 by the Kingdom of Spain against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 15 November 2018 in Case T-399/11 RENV Banco Santander and Santusa v Commission
      (Case C-65/19 P)
      (2019/C 112/43)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Appellant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. A. Sampol Pucurull, acting as Agent)

         Other parties to the proceedings: Banco Santander, S.A. and Santusa Holding, S.L, and the European Commission

         Interveners in support of the applicants at first instance: Federal Republic of Germany, and Ireland

         Form of order sought

      The appellant submits that the Court should:

                  —

                  Uphold the present appeal and set aside the judgment of the General Court of 15 November 2018, in Case T-399/11 RENV Banco Santander, S.A. and Santusa Holding, S.L. v European Commission; (1)

                  —

                  Annul Article 1(1) of the contested decision in so far as Commission Decision 2011/282/EU of 12 January 2011 on the tax amortisation of financial goodwill for foreign shareholding acquisitions C 45/07 (ex NN 51/07, ex CP 9/07) implemented by Spain (2) considers that the tax measure at issue constitutes State aid; and

                  —

                  Order the European Commission to pay the costs.

         Grounds of appeal and main arguments

      The appeal is founded on a single ground of appeal which ought to lead to the setting aside of the judgment under appeal. Spain submits that the General Court erred in law, for the purposes of Article 58 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, in its erroneous interpretation of Article 107(1) of the Treaty (TFEU) and, in particular, the concept of the selectivity of State aid contained in that article. The single ground of appeal can be divided into four parts:

                  —

                  In the first place, Spain submits that the General Court erred in determining the reference system for the tax measure, which does not coincide with that contained in the contested decision;

                  —

                  In the second place, Spain submits that the General Court erred in law by failing to find that the tax treatment of financial goodwill constitutes a general measure or an independent or specific framework;

                  —

                  In the third place, Spain maintains that the General Court also erred in law in incorrectly defining the objective of the reference framework and in incorrectly conducting the comparison required by the judgment given on appeal in World Duty Free; (3)

                  —

                  In the fourth place, the error committed in identifying a constituent element of the reference framework entails an error of law in the attribution of the burden of proof.

         (1)  Judgment of 15 November 2018, Banco Santander, S.A. and Santusa Holding, S.L. v Commission (T-399/11 RENV, EU:T:2018:787).

         (2)  OJ 2011 L 135, p. 1.

         (3)  Judgment of 21 December 2016, Commission v World Duty Free Group and Others (C-20/15 P and C-21/16 P, EU:C:2016:981).


title: Case C-106/19: Action brought on 11 February 2019 — Italian Republic v Council of the European Union, European Parliament

text:
               25.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/38

      Action brought on 11 February 2019 — Italian Republic v Council of the European Union, European Parliament
      (Case C-106/19)
      (2019/C 112/44)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, S. Fiorentino, C. Colelli, acting as Agents)

         Defendants: Council of the European Union, European Parliament

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  Annul Regulation (EU) 2018/1718 amending Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 in so far as regards the location of the seat of the European Medicines Agency, published in Official Journal L 291 of 16 November 2018; (1)

                  —

                  order the Council and the Parliament to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The application is supported by two pleas in law, which allege:

                  —

                  infringement of Articles 10, 13 and 14 of the Treaty on European Union. Infringement of Articles 114, 168(4)(c), 289 and 294 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union: by naming Amsterdam as the seat of the EMA, the contested regulation merely reflects the choice made at the Council meeting of 20 November 2017 without any involvement on the part of the European Parliament. It follows, with regard to the adoption of the regulation, that, by not having been able to influence in any way the content of the decision, the Parliament was essentially divested of its prerogatives, which ought rather to have been fully respected, in accordance with the provisions of the Treaties governing the legislative procedure chosen;

                  —

                  that the contested regulation is unlawful as a result of the unlawfulness of the decision of 20 November 2017 — 14559/17. Misuse of powers, through failure to investigate adequately and distortion of facts: if it were to be established that the Regulation may in fact only reflect the decision taken on 20 November 2017, and that the Parliament’s prerogatives had therefore not been infringed, then the regulation itself must be considered to be vitiated, indirectly, by the same defects which vitiate that decision and were previously criticised by the Italian Republic in the application that gave rise to Case C-59/18.

         (1)  Regulation (EU) 2018/1718 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 November 2018 amending Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 as regards the location of the seat of the European Medicines Agency (OJ 2018 L 291, p. 3).


title: Case C-313/18: Order of the President of the Court of 11 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Svea hovrätt — Sweden) — Dacom Limited v IPM Informed Portfolio Management AB

text:
               25.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/40

      Order of the President of the Court of 11 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Svea hovrätt — Sweden) — Dacom Limited v IPM Informed Portfolio Management AB
      (Case C-313/18) (1)

      (2019/C 112/46)
      Language of the case: Swedish
      The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 268, 30.7.2018.


title: Case C-566/18: Order of the President of the Court of 11 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien — Austria) — Austrian Airlines AG v MG, NF

text:
               25.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/40

      Order of the President of the Court of 11 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien — Austria) — Austrian Airlines AG v MG, NF
      (Case C-566/18) (1)

      (2019/C 112/47)
      Language of the case: German
      The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 455, 17.12.2018.


title: Case C-617/18: Order of the President of the Court of 16 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Albacete — Spain) — The borrowers v Globalcaja, S.A.

text:
               25.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/40

      Order of the President of the Court of 16 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Albacete — Spain) — The borrowers v Globalcaja, S.A.
      (Case C-617/18) (1)

      (2019/C 112/48)
      Language of the case: Spanish
      The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 455, 17.12.2018.


title: Case T-647/17: Judgment of the General Court of 8 February 2019 — Serendipity and Others v EUIPO — CKL Holdings (CHIARA FERRAGNI) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark CHIARA FERRAGNI — Earlier Benelux word mark Chiara — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

text:
               25.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/41

      Judgment of the General Court of 8 February 2019 — Serendipity and Others v EUIPO — CKL Holdings (CHIARA FERRAGNI)
      (Case T-647/17) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark CHIARA FERRAGNI - Earlier Benelux word mark Chiara - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
      (2019/C 112/49)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicants: Serendipity Srl (Milan, Italy), Giuseppe Morgese (Barletta, Italy) and Pasquale Morgese (Barletta) (represented by: C. Volpi, L. Aliotta and F. Garbagnati Lo Iacono, lawyers)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: CKL Holdings NV (Bussum, Netherlands)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 July 2017 (Case R 2444/2016-4) relating to opposition proceedings between, on the one hand, CKL Holdings and, on the other hand, Serendipity and Messrs Morgese.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 17 July 2017 (Case R 2444/2016-4);

                  2.

                  Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Serendipity Srl, Mr Giuseppe Morgese and Mr Pasquale Morgese.

         (1)  OJ C 392, 20.11.2017.


title: Case T-34/19: Action brought on 16 January 2019 — Orkla Foods Danmark v EUIPO (PRODUCED WITHOUT BOILING SCANDINAVIAN DELIGHTS ESTABLISHED 1834 FRUIT SPREAD)

text:
               25.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/41

      Action brought on 16 January 2019 — Orkla Foods Danmark v EUIPO (PRODUCED WITHOUT BOILING SCANDINAVIAN DELIGHTS ESTABLISHED 1834 FRUIT SPREAD)
      (Case T-34/19)
      (2019/C 112/50)
      Language of the case: Danish

         Parties

         Applicant: Orkla Foods Danmark (Taastrup, Denmark) (represented by: S. Hansen, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘PRODUCED WITHOUT BOILING SCANDINAVIAN DELIGHTS ESTABLISHED 1834 FRUIT SPREAD’ — Application for registration No 16 930 241

         Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 October 2018 (Case R 309/2018-2)

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay the costs.

         Plea in law

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 7(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.


title: Case T-41/19: Action brought on 23 January 2019 — MSI Svetovanje v EUIPO — Industrial Farmaceutica Cantabria (nume)

text:
               25.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/42

      Action brought on 23 January 2019 — MSI Svetovanje v EUIPO — Industrial Farmaceutica Cantabria (nume)
      (Case T-41/19)
      (2019/C 112/51)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: MSI Svetovanje, marketing, d.o.o (Vrhnika, Slovenia) (represented by: M. Maček, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Industrial Farmaceutica Cantabria, SA (Madrid, Spain)

         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 nume — Application for registration No 15 120 355

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 November 2018 in Case R 722/2018-5

         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 to MSI Svetovanje d.o.o.

         Pleas in law

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 94 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and of Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

                  —

                  Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.


title: Case T-54/19: Action brought on 29 January 2019 — Nosio v EUIPO (BIANCOFINO)

text:
               25.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/44

      Action brought on 29 January 2019 — Nosio v EUIPO (BIANCOFINO)
      (Case T-54/19)
      (2019/C 112/53)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: Nosio SpA (Mezzocorona, Italy) (represented by: J. Graffer and A. Ottolini, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark BIANCOFINO — Application for registration No 16 376 758

         Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 November 2018 in Case R 2434/2017-1

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  Annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  Order EUIPO to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

         Plea in law

                  —

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


title: Case T-60/19: Action brought on 31 January 2019 — Chypre v EUIPO — Filotas Bellas & Yios (Halloumi Vermion grill cheese M BELAS PREMIUM GREEK DAIRY SINCE 1927)

text:
               25.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/44

      Action brought on 31 January 2019 — Chypre v EUIPO — Filotas Bellas & Yios (Halloumi Vermion grill cheese M BELAS PREMIUM GREEK DAIRY SINCE 1927)
      (Case T-60/19)
      (2019/C 112/54)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

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

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

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

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

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

         Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 November 2018 in Case R 2296/2017-4

         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 those of the applicant.

         Pleas in law

                  —

                  The Board of Appeal erred in its assessment of the similarity of the goods;

                  —

                  The Board of Appeal erred in considering that it was correct to transpose the reasoning from previous General Court case law;

                  —

                  The Board of Appeal wrongly held that an earlier national mark wholly lacked distinctive character as distinguishing goods which are certified from those which were not;

                  —

                  The Board of Appeal erred in the comparison of the marks and the assessment of the likelihood of confusion;

                  —

                  The Board of Appeal failed to consider national provisions and case law as to the scope and effect of national certification marks.


title: Case T-64/19: Action brought on 4 February 2019 – ECSEL Joint Undertaking v Personal Health Institute International

text:
               25.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/45

      Action brought on 4 February 2019 – ECSEL Joint Undertaking v Personal Health Institute International
      (Case T-64/19)
      (2019/C 112/55)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: ECSEL Joint Undertaking (represented by: G. Kuyper and P. Brochier, lawyers)

         Defendant: Personal Health Institute International (Amsterdam, Netherlands)

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay to ECSEL the amount of EU 25 513,84, together with interest at the contractual rate of 3,5 % from 15 December 2014 until full payment is received.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, based on an alleged breach of contract by the defendant, which, the applicant alleges, failed to provide any detail or information regarding its project to the relevant national funding authority and failed to fulfil its contractual obligations, thus justifying termination of the contract as far as the defendant was concerned pursuant to the relevant provisions of Article II.20.1 of Annex II to the Grant Agreement.


title: Case T-69/19: Action brought on 6 February 2019 — Südwestdeutsche Salzwerke v EUIPO (Bad Reichenhaller Alpensaline)

text:
               25.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/47

      Action brought on 6 February 2019 — Südwestdeutsche Salzwerke v EUIPO (Bad Reichenhaller Alpensaline)
      (Case T-69/19)
      (2019/C 112/57)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Südwestdeutsche Salzwerke AG (Heilbronn, Germany) (represented by: M. Douglas, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark Bad Reichenhaller Alpensaline — Application for registration No 17 126 517

         Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 December 2018 in Case R 412/2018-1

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision and allow EU trade mark application No 17 126 517, thus far rejected, to proceed to registration;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law

                  —

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


title: Case T-74/19: Action brought on 7 February 2019 — DK Company v EUIPO — Hunter Boot (DENIM HUNTER)

text:
               25.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/47

      Action brought on 7 February 2019 — DK Company v EUIPO — Hunter Boot (DENIM HUNTER)
      (Case T-74/19)
      (2019/C 112/58)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: DK Company A/S (Ikast, Denmark) (represented by: S. Hansen, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hunter Boot Limited (Edinburgh, United Kingdom)

         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 DENIM HUNTER — Application for registration No 14 649 891

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 November 2018 in Case R 849/2018-2

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  reverse the contested decision;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay the costs including cost incurred by the applicant.

         Plea in law

                  —

                  The Board of Appeal has erred in finding that a risk of confusion exists between the marks.


title: Case T-75/19: Action brought on 8 February 2019 — Comune di Milano v Parliament and Council

text:
               25.3.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/48

      Action brought on 8 February 2019 — Comune di Milano v Parliament and Council
      (Case T-75/19)
      (2019/C 112/59)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: Comune di Milano (represented by: F. Sciaudone, M. Condinanzi and A. Neri, lawyers)

         Defendants: European Parliament, Council of the European Union

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  Annul Regulation (EU) 2018/1718 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 November 2018 amending Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 in so far as regards the location of the seat of the European Medicines Regulation (‘EMA’);

                  —

                  declare the Council’s decision of 20 November 2017 invalid, pursuant to point 6 of the procedural rules of 22 June 2017;

                  —

                  order the Council and the European Parliament to pay the costs of these proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of representative democracy (Article 10 TEU), institutional balance and sincere cooperation (Article 13 TEU) as well as infringement of essential procedural requirements and Article 14 TEU.

                              —

                              The applicant invokes the infringement of the principles at issue in so far as: (i) the seat of the EMA was selected by just one institution, the Council, on completion of the decision-making process resulting in the decision of 20 November 2017, which determined the content of the contested Regulation (namely the location of the seat of the EMA in Amsterdam) outside, and prior to the start of, the ordinary legislative procedure; (ii) throughout the selection procedure for the EMA’s seat, in the course of which the decision-making process was exhausted, the Council and the Commission — the only two institutions involved in the selection procedure — did not involve the Parliament; (iii) using the ordinary legislative procedure, the Council and the Commission presented the Parliament with the fait accompli of the selection (already made) of the seat in Amsterdam; (iv) the Council and the Commission did not leave the Parliament any scope to assess or question that decision; instead, they made every effort to conclude the legislative procedure in the shortest possible time; (v) the Parliament was prevented from performing its own function, even though this is laid down in the Treaties, and during the ordinary legislative procedure was forced, against its will, to ‘ratify’ the decision taken by the Council.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging misuse of powers and infringement of the principle of transparency, sound administration and fairness

                              —

                              According to the applicant, the objective of the selection procedure was to identify the best offer for the relocation of the seat of the EMA in the light of pre-established objective selection criteria set out in the call for offers. Nevertheless, in the present case, the selection of the seat by balloting without any preliminary investigation did not allow for the verification of any lack of equivalence between the two applications of Milan and Amsterdam or for the selection of the best offer. Furthermore, the outcome of the vote of 20 November 2017 in favour of Amsterdam was a result of the Commission’s failure to carry out an effective investigation and an incorrect understanding of the Dutch offer (as regards various essential aspects). Consequently, the Member States selected Amsterdam’s application on the erroneous basis that it met the requirements laid down in the call for offers and the specific requirements of the Agency. Furthermore, the Dutch offer was modified ex post (making it worse) following the vote of 20 November 2017. The modifications to the offer were negotiated on a secret and bilateral basis. The defects in the decision of 20 November 2017 mean that the contested regulation is unlawful.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of sound administration

                              —

                              The applicant claims in that regard that the decision-making process which resulted in the selection of the new seat of the EMA was characterised by a lack of formal structure and procedures designed to guarantee the necessary transparency. The failure to carry out the necessary investigations and the subsequent bilateral and secret renegotiation of some of the essential conditions of the Dutch offer exacerbated the infringement of the principle of transparency. Moreover, many factors relevant to decision-making were not considered. The failure to carry out a proper assessment of the offers and the Commission’s incorrect understanding of three essential aspects of the Dutch offer (surface area of the temporary seat, financial requirements and the fact that it could not guarantee the operational continuity of the Agency) exacerbated the infringement of the principle of sound administration.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, based on the Council’s decision of 11 September 2009 relating to the adoption of its rules of procedure and alleging infringement of the procedural rules of the Council of 31 October 2017

                              —

                              The applicant claims in that regard that the way in which the voting was conducted and the outcome of the vote are vitiated because the specific rules which the Council should have complied with were infringed, with the result that the decision of 20 November 2017 and contested regulation are unlawful.


title: Case C-665/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 23 October 2018 — Pólus Vegas Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

text:
               1.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 122/3

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 23 October 2018 — Pólus Vegas Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága
      (Case C-665/18)
      (2019/C 122/03)
      Language of the case: Hungarian

         Referring court

      Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Pólus Vegas Kft.

         Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  May paragraphs 39 to 42 of the judgment delivered by the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C-98/14 be interpreted as meaning that the fact that domestic legislation increases five-fold the fixed-rate tax on gaming, without providing for any transitional arrangements, while at the same time introducing a proportional tax on gaming, constitutes a restriction on the freedom to provide services under Article 56 TFEU?

                  2.

                  May the terms ‘impede’ or ‘render less attractive’ which are used in the judgment in Case C-98/14 be interpreted — having regard to and in application of Additional Protocol No 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — as meaning that an unjustified and unreasonable increase in the tax on gaming in a Member State deprives the organisers of games of chance in amusement arcades of their profits in a disproportionate and discriminatory fashion which distorts competition in favour of casinos and infringes the aforementioned Additional Protocol to the ECHR and Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?

                  3.

                  May the content of the judgment delivered in Case C-98/14 be interpreted as meaning that the fact that the operation of gaming machines ceases to be profitable and may be carried on only at a loss as a result of an unjustified and unreasonable increase in the tax on gaming warrants the assessment that that increase has the effect of ‘impeding’ that activity or ‘rendering it less attractive’?

                  4.

                  In the context of the implementation in the Member State of the judgment delivered in Case C-98/14, may the freedom to provide services be interpreted as meaning that amusement arcades and casinos operated in a Member State must, in principle, be assumed to entail an EU cross-border component consisting in the fact that EU citizens from other Member States may also make use of the gaming opportunities in question?


title: Case T-278/19: Action brought on 26 April 2019 — Aurora v CPVO — SESVanderhave (M 02205)

text:
               24.6.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/71

      Action brought on 26 April 2019 — Aurora v CPVO — SESVanderhave (M 02205)
      (Case T-278/19)
      (2019/C 213/69)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Aurora Srl (Padova, Italy) (represented by: L.-B. Buchman, lawyer)

         Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: SESVanderhave NV (Tienen, Belgium)

         Details of the proceedings before CPVO

         Proprietor of the Community plant variety right at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

         Community plant variety right at issue: Community Plant Variety Right No. EU 15118, sugar beet variety M 02205

         Procedure before CPVO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

         Contested decision: Decision of the Board of Appeal of CPVO of 27 February 2019 in Case R A010/2013-RENV

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  declare that the contested decision misapplied the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 23 November 2017 in case T-140/15;

                  —

                  alter the contested decision, reverse CPVO Decision NN010 of 23 September 2013 and validate the challenge to the validity of CPVR No. EU 15118 raised by the applicant on 28 August 2012;

            and as a consequence:

                  —

                  declare that CPVR No. EU 15118 is ab initio null and void;

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties.

         Pleas in law

                  —

                  Violation of the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations;

                  —

                  Dereliction of duty and denial of justice.


title: Opinion 1/17: Opinion of the Court (Full Court) of 30 April 2019 — Kingdom of Belgium (Opinion pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU — Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada, of the one part, and the European Union and its Member States, of the other part (CETA) — Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) — Establishment of a Tribunal and an Appellate Tribunal — Compatibility with primary EU law — Requirement to respect the autonomy of the EU legal order — Level of protection of public interests determined, in accordance with the EU constitutional framework, by the EU institutions — Equal treatment of Canadian investors and EU investors — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 20 — Access to the above Tribunals and their independence — Article 47 of the Charter — Financial accessibility — Commitment to guarantee that accessibility for natural persons and small and medium-sized enterprises — External and internal aspects of the requirement of independence — Appointment, remuneration and ethics of the Members — Role of the CETA Joint Committee — Binding interpretations of the CETA determined by that Committee)

text:
               1.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/2

      Opinion of the Court (Full Court) of 30 April 2019 — Kingdom of Belgium
      (Opinion 1/17) OJ C 369, 30.10.2017.
      (Opinion pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU - Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada, of the one part, and the European Union and its Member States, of the other part (CETA) - Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) - Establishment of a Tribunal and an Appellate Tribunal - Compatibility with primary EU law - Requirement to respect the autonomy of the EU legal order - Level of protection of public interests determined, in accordance with the EU constitutional framework, by the EU institutions - Equal treatment of Canadian investors and EU investors - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 20 - Access to the above Tribunals and their independence - Article 47 of the Charter - Financial accessibility - Commitment to guarantee that accessibility for natural persons and small and medium-sized enterprises - External and internal aspects of the requirement of independence - Appointment, remuneration and ethics of the Members - Role of the CETA Joint Committee - Binding interpretations of the CETA determined by that Committee)
      (2019/C 220/02)
      Language of the case: all the official languages

         Applicant

      Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: C. Pochet, L. Van den Broeck, M. Jacobs and J.-C. Halleux, acting as Agents)

         Operative part of the Opinion

      Section F of Chapter Eight of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada, of the one part, and the European Union and its Member States, of the other part, signed in Brussels on 30 October 2016, is compatible with EU primary law.


title: Case C-598/17: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof ’s-Hertogenbosch — Netherlands) — A-Fonds v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Existing aid and new aid — Concept of new aid — Refund of dividend tax — Scheme widened to companies established outside the Member State concerned — Free movement of capital — Obligations of national courts)

text:
               1.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/2

      Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof ’s-Hertogenbosch — Netherlands) — A-Fonds v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst
      (Case C-598/17) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Existing aid and new aid - Concept of new aid - Refund of dividend tax - Scheme widened to companies established outside the Member State concerned - Free movement of capital - Obligations of national courts)
      (2019/C 220/03)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Referring court

      Gerechtshof ’s-Hertogenbosch

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: A-Fonds

         Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst

         Operative part of the judgment

      Articles 107 and 108 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that a national court cannot assess whether a residence condition, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, complies with Article 56(1) EC, now Article 63(1) TFEU, where the scheme for the refund of dividend tax concerned constitutes an aid scheme.

         (1)  OJ C 22, 22.1.2018.


title: Case C-611/17: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 30 April 2019 — Italian Republic v Council of the European Union (Actions for annulment — Common fisheries policy — Conservation of resources — International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas — Total allowable catch (TAC) for Mediterranean swordfish — Regulation (EU) 2017/1398 — Fixing of fishing opportunities for 2017 — Exclusive competence of the European Union — Determination of the reference period — Reliability of the basic facts — Scope of judicial review — Article 17 TEU — Management of the EU’s interests within international bodies — Principle of relative stability — Conditions under which applicable — Principles of non-retroactivity, legal certainty, legitimate expectation and non-discrimination)

text:
               1.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/3

      Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 30 April 2019 — Italian Republic v Council of the European Union
      (Case C-611/17) (1)

      (Actions for annulment - Common fisheries policy - Conservation of resources - International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas - Total allowable catch (TAC) for Mediterranean swordfish - Regulation (EU) 2017/1398 - Fixing of fishing opportunities for 2017 - Exclusive competence of the European Union - Determination of the reference period - Reliability of the basic facts - Scope of judicial review - Article 17 TEU - Management of the EU’s interests within international bodies - Principle of relative stability - Conditions under which applicable - Principles of non-retroactivity, legal certainty, legitimate expectation and non-discrimination)
      (2019/C 220/04)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, assisted by P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato)

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

         Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented initially by: V. Ester Casas and subsequently by M.J. García-Valdecasas Dorrego, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: F. Moro and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, acting as Agents)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders the Italian Republic to pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union;

                  3.

                  Orders the Kingdom of Spain and the Commission to bear their own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 424, 11.12.2017.


title: Case C-614/17: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 2 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Fundación Consejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen Protegida Queso Manchego v Industrial Quesera Cuquerella SL, Juan Ramón Cuquerella Montagud (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Agriculture — Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 — Article 13(1)(b) — Protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs — Manchego cheese (‘queso manchego’) — Use of signs capable of evoking the region with which a protected designation of origin (PDO) is associated — Concept of the ‘average consumer who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect’ — European consumers or consumers of the Member State in which the product covered by the PDO is made and mainly consumed)

text:
               1.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/4

      Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 2 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Fundación Consejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen Protegida Queso Manchego v Industrial Quesera Cuquerella SL, Juan Ramón Cuquerella Montagud
      (Case C-614/17) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 - Article 13(1)(b) - Protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs - Manchego cheese (‘queso manchego’) - Use of signs capable of evoking the region with which a protected designation of origin (PDO) is associated - Concept of the ‘average consumer who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect’ - European consumers or consumers of the Member State in which the product covered by the PDO is made and mainly consumed)
      (2019/C 220/05)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Referring court

      Tribunal Supremo

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Fundación Consejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen Protegida Queso Manchego

         Defendants: Industrial Quesera Cuquerella SL, Juan Ramón Cuquerella Montagud

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Article 13(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs must be interpreted as meaning that a registered name may be evoked through the use of figurative signs.

                  2.

                  Article 13(1)(b) of Regulation No 510/2006 must be interpreted as meaning that the use of figurative signs evoking the geographical area with which a designation of origin, as referred to in Article 2(1)(a) of that regulation, is associated may constitute evocation of that designation, including where such figurative signs are used by a producer established in that region, but whose products, similar or comparable to those protected by the designation of origin, are not covered by it.

                  3.

                  The concept of the average consumer who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect, to whose perception the national court has to refer in order to assess whether there is ‘evocation’ within the meaning of Article 13(1)(b) of Regulation No 510/2006, must be understood as covering European consumers, including consumers of the Member State in which the product giving rise to evocation of the protected name is made or with which that name is geographically associated and in which the product is mainly consumed.

         (1)  OJ C 42, 5.2.2018.


title: Case C-694/17: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 2 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg — Luxembourg) — Pillar Securitisation Sàrl v Hildur Arnadottir (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Lugano II Convention — Article 15 — Contract concluded by a consumer — Relationship with Directive 2008/48/EC — Consumer credit agreements — Articles 2 and 3 — Concepts of ‘consumer’ and of ‘transactions covered by the directive’ — Maximum amount of credit — Irrelevant for the purposes of Article 15 of the Lugano II Convention)

text:
               1.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/5

      Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 2 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg — Luxembourg) — Pillar Securitisation Sàrl v Hildur Arnadottir
      (Case C-694/17) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Lugano II Convention - Article 15 - Contract concluded by a consumer - Relationship with Directive 2008/48/EC - Consumer credit agreements - Articles 2 and 3 - Concepts of ‘consumer’ and of ‘transactions covered by the directive’ - Maximum amount of credit - Irrelevant for the purposes of Article 15 of the Lugano II Convention)
      (2019/C 220/06)
      Language of the case: French

         Referring court

      Cour de cassation du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Pillar Securitisation Sàrl

         Defendant: Hildur Arnadottir

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 15 of the Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, signed on 30 October 2007, which was approved on behalf of the Community by Council Decision 2009/430/EC of 27 November 2008, must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of ascertaining whether a credit agreement is a credit agreement concluded by a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of Article 15, it must not be determined whether the agreement falls within the scope of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC, in the sense that the total cost of credit in question does not exceed the ceiling set out in Article 2(2)(c) of that directive, and that it is irrelevant, in that regard, that the national law transposing that directive does not provide for a higher ceiling.

         (1)  OJ C 63, 19.2.2018.


title: Case C-133/18: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 2 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the tribunal administratif de Montreuil — France) — Sea Chefs Cruise Services GmbH v Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes publics (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Refund of VAT — Directive 2008/9/EC — Article 20 — Request for additional information from the Member State of refund — Information to be provided within one month of the date on which the request reaches the person to whom it is addressed — Legal nature of time limit and consequences of failure to comply)

text:
               1.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/6

      Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 2 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the tribunal administratif de Montreuil — France) — Sea Chefs Cruise Services GmbH v Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes publics
      (Case C-133/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Refund of VAT - Directive 2008/9/EC - Article 20 - Request for additional information from the Member State of refund - Information to be provided within one month of the date on which the request reaches the person to whom it is addressed - Legal nature of time limit and consequences of failure to comply)
      (2019/C 220/08)
      Language of the case: French

         Referring court

      Tribunal administratif de Montreuil

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Sea Chefs Cruise Services GmbH

         Defendant: Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes publics

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 20(2) of Council Directive 2008/9 laying down detailed rules for the refund of value added tax, provided for in Directive 2006/112/EC, to taxable persons not established in the Member State of refund but established in another Member State must be interpreted as meaning that the time limit of one month laid down in that provision for providing the Member State of refund with the additional information requested by that Member State is not a limitation period whereby, if that period is exceeded or in the event of a failure to reply, the taxable person loses the possibility of regularising his refund application by producing, directly before the national court, additional information intended to establish the existence of his right to the refund of VAT.

         (1)  OJ C 166, 14.5.2018.


title: Case C-225/18: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 2 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Grupa Lotos S.A. v Minister Finansów (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Deduction of input tax — Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC — Article 17(2) and (6) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 168 and 176 — Exclusion from the right to deduct — Purchase of overnight accommodation and catering services — Standstill clause — Accession to the European Union)

text:
               1.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/8

      Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 2 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Grupa Lotos S.A. v Minister Finansów
      (Case C-225/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Deduction of input tax - Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC - Article 17(2) and (6) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 168 and 176 - Exclusion from the right to deduct - Purchase of overnight accommodation and catering services - Standstill clause - Accession to the European Union)
      (2019/C 220/10)
      Language of the case: Polish

         Referring court

      Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Grupa Lotos S.A.

         Defendant: Minister Finansów

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 168(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as:

                  —

                  precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for the scope of an exclusion from the right to deduct value added tax (VAT) to be extended, after the accession of the Member State concerned to the European Union, and which means that a taxable person, providing tourism services, is deprived, from the entry into force of that extension, of the right to deduct VAT paid on the purchase of overnight accommodation and catering services which that taxable person re-invoices to other taxable persons in the context of the provision of tourism services and

                  —

                  not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for the exclusion from the right to deduct VAT paid on the purchase of overnight accommodation and catering services, that exclusion having been introduced before the accession of the Member State concerned to the European Union and maintained thereafter, in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 176 of Directive 2006/112, and which means that a taxable person, who does not provide tourism services, is deprived of the right to deduct VAT paid on the purchase of such overnight accommodation and catering services which that taxable person re-invoices to other taxable persons.

         (1)  OJ C 231, 2.7.2018.


title: Case C-250/18: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 2 May 2019 — European Commission v Republic of Croatia (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2008/98/EC — Waste treatment — Article 5(1) — Stone aggregate which does not fall within the concept of a ‘by-product’ — Article 13 — Obligation of Member States to ensure protection of human health and of the environment — Article 15(1) — Obligation to have waste treated by the holder or other designated persons)

text:
               1.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/9

      Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 2 May 2019 — European Commission v Republic of Croatia
      (Case C-250/18) (1)

      (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2008/98/EC - Waste treatment - Article 5(1) - Stone aggregate which does not fall within the concept of a ‘by-product’ - Article 13 - Obligation of Member States to ensure protection of human health and of the environment - Article 15(1) - Obligation to have waste treated by the holder or other designated persons)
      (2019/C 220/11)
      Language of the case: Croatian

         Parties

         Applicant: European Commission (represented by M. Mataija, F. Thiran and E. Sanfrutos Cano, acting as Agents)

         Defendant: Republic of Croatia (represented by T. Galli and M. Vidović, acting as Agents)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Declares that, by failing to consider that the stone aggregate deposited in Biljane Donje (Croatia) is waste, rather than a by-product, and must be treated as waste, the Republic of Croatia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(1) of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives;
                  By failing to take all the measures necessary to ensure that management of the waste deposited in Biljane Donje is carried out without endangering human health or harming the environment, the Republic of Croatia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13 of Directive 2008/98;
                  By failing to take the measures necessary to ensure that the holder of the waste deposited in Biljane Donje treats the waste himself or has the treatment handled by a dealer or an establishment or undertaking that carries out waste treatment operations or by a private or public waste collector, the Republic of Croatia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 15(1) of Directive 2008/98;

                  2.

                  Orders the Republic of Croatia to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 200, 11.6.2018.


title: Case C-25/18: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Okrazhen sad — Blagoevgrad — Bulgaria) — Brian Andrew Kerr v Pavlo Postnov, Natalia Postnova (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Article 7(1)(a) — Special jurisdiction in matters relating to contract — Concept of ‘matters relating to a contract’ — Decision of the general meeting of the owners of property in a building — Obligation of the owners to pay annual financial contributions to the budget of the association of property owners as determined by that decision — Legal action seeking enforcement of that decision — Law applicable to contractual obligations — Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 — Article 4(1)(b) and (c) — Concepts of ‘contract for the provision of services’ and ‘a contract relating to a right in rem in immovable property’ — Decision of the general meeting of the owners of property in a building relating to maintenance costs for communal areas)

text:
               8.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 230/11

      Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Okrazhen sad — Blagoevgrad — Bulgaria) — Brian Andrew Kerr v Pavlo Postnov, Natalia Postnova
      (Case C-25/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Article 7(1)(a) - Special jurisdiction in matters relating to contract - Concept of ‘matters relating to a contract’ - Decision of the general meeting of the owners of property in a building - Obligation of the owners to pay annual financial contributions to the budget of the association of property owners as determined by that decision - Legal action seeking enforcement of that decision - Law applicable to contractual obligations - Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 - Article 4(1)(b) and (c) - Concepts of ‘contract for the provision of services’ and ‘a contract relating to a right in rem in immovable property’ - Decision of the general meeting of the owners of property in a building relating to maintenance costs for communal areas)
      (2019/C 230/12)
      Language of the case: Bulgarian

         Referring court

      Okrazhen sad — Blagoevgrad

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: Brian Andrew Kerr

         Respondents: Pavlo Postnov, Natalia Postnova

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Article 7(1)(a) 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 dispute concerning a payment obligation arising from a decision taken by a general meeting of the owners of property in a building, which does not have legal personality and has been specifically established by law in order to exercise certain rights, — where that decision has been taken by a majority of members, but binds all members — must be regarded as falling within the concept of ‘matters relating to a contract’ within the meaning of that provision.

                  2.

                  Article 4(1)(b) 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 meaning that a dispute, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, concerning a payment obligation resulting from a decision of a general meeting of the owners of property in an apartment building, relating to the costs of maintaining the communal areas of that property, must be regarded as relating to a contract for the provision of services, within the meaning of that provision.

         (1)  OJ C 112, 26.3.2018.


title: Case C-53/18: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Antonio Pasquale Mastromartino v Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Markets in financial instruments — Directive 2004/39/EC — Articles 8, 23, 50 and 51 — Scope — Financial adviser authorised to provide offsite services — Staff member who has become a defendant in criminal proceedings — National legislation providing for the possibility of temporarily prohibiting the exercise of the activity — Fundamental freedoms — Purely internal situation — Not applicable)

text:
               8.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 230/12

      Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Antonio Pasquale Mastromartino v Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob)
      (Case C-53/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Markets in financial instruments - Directive 2004/39/EC - Articles 8, 23, 50 and 51 - Scope - Financial adviser authorised to provide offsite services - Staff member who has become a defendant in criminal proceedings - National legislation providing for the possibility of temporarily prohibiting the exercise of the activity - Fundamental freedoms - Purely internal situation - Not applicable)
      (2019/C 230/13)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Antonio Pasquale Mastromartino

         Defendant: Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob)

         Operative part of the judgment

      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, as amended by Directive 2010/78/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010, in particular Articles 8, 23, 50 and 51 thereof, Articles 49 and 56 TFEU and the principles of non-discrimination and proportionality must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, a temporary prohibition on exercising the activity of financial adviser authorised to provide offsite services falls neither within the scope of that directive, nor that of Articles 49 and 56 TFEU or that of the principles of non-discrimination and proportionality. In such circumstances, Articles 8, 23, 50 and 51 of that directive, Articles 49 and 56 TFEU and the principles of non-discrimination and proportionality do not preclude such a prohibition.

         (1)  OJ C 142, 23.4.2018.


title: Case C-127/18: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — A-PACK CZ s. r. o. v Odvolací finanční ředitelství (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 90 and 273 — Total or partial non-payment, by the debtor, of a sum due to the taxable person in respect of a transaction subject to VAT — Taxable amount — Reduction — Principles of fiscal neutrality andproportionality)

text:
               8.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 230/12

      Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — A-PACK CZ s. r. o. v Odvolací finanční ředitelství
      (Case C-127/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 90 and 273 - Total or partial non-payment, by the debtor, of a sum due to the taxable person in respect of a transaction subject to VAT - Taxable amount - Reduction - Principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality)
      (2019/C 230/14)
      Language of the case: Czech

         Referring court

      Nejvyšší správní soud

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: A-PACK CZ s. r. o.

         Respondent: Odvolací finanční ředitelství

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 90 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that a taxable person cannot correct the value added tax (VAT) taxable amount, in the case of total or partial non-payment, by its debtor, of a sum due in respect of a transaction subject to that tax, if the debtor is no longer a taxable person for the purposes of VAT.

         (1)  OJ C 152, 30.4.2018.


title: Case C-161/18: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla y León -Spain) — Violeta Villar Láiz v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS), Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security — Directive 79/7/EEC — Article 4 — Prohibition of any discrimination on the ground of sex — Indirect discrimination — Part-time work — Calculation of retirement pension)

text:
               8.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 230/13

      Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla y León -Spain) — Violeta Villar Láiz v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS), Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS)
      (Case C-161/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security - Directive 79/7/EEC - Article 4 - Prohibition of any discrimination on the ground of sex - Indirect discrimination - Part-time work - Calculation of retirement pension)
      (2019/C 230/15)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Referring court

      Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla y León

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: Violeta Villar Láiz

         Respondent: Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS), Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS)

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 4(1) of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that the amount of retirement pension based on contributions of a part-time worker is to be calculated by multiplying a basic amount, established from the remuneration actually received and contributions actually paid, by a percentage which relates to the length of the period of contribution, that period being itself modified, by a reduction factor equal to the ratio of the time of part-time work actually carried out to the time of work carried out by a comparable full-time worker, and increased by the application of a factor of 1.5, to the extent that that legislation places at a particular disadvantage workers who are women as compared with workers who are men.

         (1)  OJ C 190, 4.6.2018.


title: Case C-194/18: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije — Slovenia) — Jadran Dodič v Banka Koper, Alta Invest (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Transfers of undertakings — Directive 2001/23/EC — Article 1(1) — Scope — Criteria for assessment of the transfer — Transfer of clients — Transfer of all the financial services of a bank, excluding staff, to a stock brokering company)

text:
               8.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 230/14

      Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije — Slovenia) — Jadran Dodič v Banka Koper, Alta Invest
      (Case C-194/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Transfers of undertakings - Directive 2001/23/EC - Article 1(1) - Scope - Criteria for assessment of the transfer - Transfer of clients - Transfer of all the financial services of a bank, excluding staff, to a stock brokering company)
      (2019/C 230/16)
      Language of the case: Slovenian

         Referring court

      Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: Jadran Dodič

         Respondents: Banka Koper, Alta Invest

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 1(1) of Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses, must be interpreted as meaning that the transfer, to a second undertaking, of financial instruments and other assets of the clients of a first undertaking, following the cessation of the first undertaking’s activity, under a contract the conclusion of which is required by national legislation, even though the first undertaking’s clients remain free not to entrust the management of their stock market securities to the second undertaking, may constitute a transfer of an undertaking or of part of an undertaking if it is established that there was a transfer of clients, that being a matter for the referring court to determine. In that context, the number of clients actually transferred, even if very high, is not, in itself, decisive as regards classification as a ‘transfer’ and the fact that the first undertaking cooperates with the second undertaking as a dependent stock-exchange intermediary, is, in principle, irrelevant.

         (1)  OJ C 190, 4.6.2018.


title: Case C-230/18: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Tirol — Austria) — PI v Landespolizeidirektion Tirol (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 49 TFEU — Article 15(2) and Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services — Restriction — Decision to immediately close a commercial enterprise — No statement of reasons — Overriding reasons in the public interest — Prevention of criminal offences against persons engaged in prostitution — Protection of public health — Proportionality of the restriction on the freedom of establishment — Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Effectiveness of judicial review — Rights of defence — General principle of the right to good administration)

text:
               8.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 230/15

      Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Tirol — Austria) — PI v Landespolizeidirektion Tirol
      (Case C-230/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 49 TFEU - Article 15(2) and Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services - Restriction - Decision to immediately close a commercial enterprise - No statement of reasons - Overriding reasons in the public interest - Prevention of criminal offences against persons engaged in prostitution - Protection of public health - Proportionality of the restriction on the freedom of establishment - Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Effectiveness of judicial review - Rights of defence - General principle of the right to good administration)
      (2019/C 230/17)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Landesverwaltungsgericht Tirol

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Complainant: PI

         Defendant authority: Landespolizeidirektion Tirol

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 49 TFEU, Article 15(2) and Articles 16, 47 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the general principle of the right to good administration must be interpreted, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, as precluding national legislation providing that an administrative authority may decide to close a commercial establishment with immediate effect, on the ground that it suspects that prostitution is practised in that establishment without the authorisation required under that legislation, in so far as that legislation, first, does not require reasons, in fact and in law, to be given in writing for such a decision and to be communicated to its addressee, and second, requires that any application brought by that addressee and seeking annulment of that decision must be reasoned.

         (1)  OJ C 249, 16.7.2018.


title: Case C-253/18: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Stadt Euskirchen v Rhenus Veniro GmbH & Co. KG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Transport — Public passenger transport services by rail and by road — Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 — Article 5(1) and (2) — Direct award — Contracts for public passenger transport services by bus and by tram — Conditions — Directive 2014/24/EU — Article 12 — Directive 2014/25/EU — Article 28)

text:
               8.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 230/16

      Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Stadt Euskirchen v Rhenus Veniro GmbH & Co. KG
      (Case C-253/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Transport - Public passenger transport services by rail and by road - Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 - Article 5(1) and (2) - Direct award - Contracts for public passenger transport services by bus and by tram - Conditions - Directive 2014/24/EU - Article 12 - Directive 2014/25/EU - Article 28)
      (2019/C 230/19)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Stadt Euskirchen

         Defendant: Rhenus Veniro GmbH & Co. KG

         Joined parties: SVE Stadtverkehr Euskirchen GmbH, RVK Regionalverkehr Köln GmbH

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on public passenger transport services by rail and by road and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 1191/69 and 1107/70 must be interpreted as meaning that it is not applicable to the direct award of contracts relating to public passenger transport services by bus which do not take the form of service concessions contracts within the meaning of Directive 2014/23/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on the award of concession contracts.

         (1)  OJ C 249, 16.7.2018.


title: Case C-486/18: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — RE v Praxair MRC SAS (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 96/34/EC — Framework agreement on parental leave — Clause 2.6 — Worker employed full-time and for indefinite duration on part-time parental leave — Dismissal — Compensation payment for dismissal and redeployment leave allowance — Method of calculation — Article 157 TFEU — Equal pay for male and female workers — Part-time parental leave taken primarily by female workers — Indirect discrimination — Objective factors unrelated to any sex discrimination — None)

text:
               8.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 230/18

      Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — RE v Praxair MRC SAS
      (Case C-486/18) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 96/34/EC - Framework agreement on parental leave - Clause 2.6 - Worker employed full-time and for indefinite duration on part-time parental leave - Dismissal - Compensation payment for dismissal and redeployment leave allowance - Method of calculation - Article 157 TFEU - Equal pay for male and female workers - Part-time parental leave taken primarily by female workers - Indirect discrimination - Objective factors unrelated to any sex discrimination - None)
      (2019/C 230/21)
      Language of the case: French

         Referring court

      Cour de cassation

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: RE

         Defendant: Praxair MRC SAS

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Clause 2.6 of the framework agreement on parental leave concluded on 14 December 1995, which is annexed to Council Directive 96/34/EC of 3 June 1996 on the framework agreement on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC, as amended by Council Directive 97/75/EC of 15 December 1997, must be interpreted as precluding, where a worker employed full-time and for an indefinite duration is dismissed at the time he is on part-time parental leave, the compensation payment for dismissal and the redeployment leave allowance to be paid to that worker being determined at least in part on the basis of the reduced salary which he receives when the dismissal takes place.

                  2.

                  Article 157 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation such as that in the main proceedings which provides that, where a worker employed full-time and for an indefinite duration is dismissed at the time he is on part-time parental leave, that worker receives a compensation payment for dismissal and a redeployment leave allowance determined at least in part on the basis of the reduced salary being received when the dismissal takes place, in circumstances when a far greater number of women than men choose to take part-time parental leave and when that difference in treatment which results therefrom cannot be explained by objective factors unrelated to any sex discrimination.

         (1)  OJ C 352, 1.10.2018.


title: Case C-780/18 P: Appeal brought on 10 December 2018 by Cuervo y Sobrinos 1882, S.L. against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 10 October 2018 in Case T-374/17 Cuervo y Sobrinos 1882 v EUIPO — A. Salgado Nespereira

text:
               8.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 230/19

      Appeal brought on 10 December 2018 by Cuervo y Sobrinos 1882, S.L. against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 10 October 2018 in Case T-374/17 Cuervo y Sobrinos 1882 v EUIPO — A. Salgado Nespereira
      (Case C-780/18 P)
      (2019/C 230/22)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Appellant: Cuervo y Sobrinos 1882, S.L. (represented by: S. Ferrandis González and K. Gibas, abogados)

         Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office and A. Salgado Nespereira, S.A.
      By order of 22 May 2019, the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) dismissed the appeal as in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded and ordered Cuervo y Sobrinos 1882, S.L. to bear its own costs.


title: Case C-264/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 29 March 2019 — Constantin Film Verleih GmbH v YouTube LLC, Google Inc.

text:
               8.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 230/19

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 29 March 2019 — Constantin Film Verleih GmbH v YouTube LLC, Google Inc.
      (Case C-264/19)
      (2019/C 230/23)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Bundesgerichtshof

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Constantin Film Verleih GmbH

         Defendants: YouTube LLC, Google Inc.

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Do the addresses of the producers, manufacturers, distributors, suppliers and other previous holders of the goods or services, as well as the intended wholesalers and retailers, mentioned in Article 8(2)(a) of Directive 2004/48/EC (1) and covered, as appropriate, by the information referred to in Article 8(1) of Directive 2004/48/EC, also include

                              (a)

                              the email addresses of service users and/or

                              (b)

                              the telephone numbers of service users and/or

                              (c)

                              the IP addresses used by service users to upload infringing files, together with the precise point in time at which such uploading took place?

                  2.

                  If the answer to Question 1(c) is in the affirmative:
                  Does the information to be provided under Article 8(2)(a) of Directive 2004/48/EC also cover the IP address that a user, who has previously uploaded infringing files, last used to access his or her Google/YouTube user account, together with the precise point in time at which access took place, irrespective of whether any infringement was committed when that account was last accessed?

         (1)  Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (OJ 2004 L 157, p. 45).


title: Case C-266/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 29 March 2019 — EIS GmbH v TO

text:
               8.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 230/20

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 29 March 2019 — EIS GmbH v TO
      (Case C-266/19)
      (2019/C 230/24)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Bundesgerichtshof

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: EIS GmbH

         Defendant: TO

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Is a telephone number ‘available’ within the meaning of the instructions for completion for model instructions on withdrawal set out in Annex I.A to Directive 2011/83/EU (1) if the trader specifies the telephone number within the legal notice or clearly and explicitly displays it on the homepage of his website?

                  2.

                  Is a telephone number ‘available’ within the meaning of the instructions for completion for model instructions on withdrawal set out in Annex I.A to Directive 2011/83/EU if, although the trader uses the telephone connection for commercial purposes, he does not use it to enter into distance contracts and therefore does not operate it for the purpose of terminating distance contracts in the form of an acceptance of notices of withdrawal either?

         (1)  Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights (OJ 2011 L 304, p. 64).


title: Case C-279/19: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (United Kingdom) made on 3 April 2019 — Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs v WR

text:
               8.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 230/21

      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (United Kingdom) made on 3 April 2019 — Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs v WR
      (Case C-279/19)
      (2019/C 230/25)
      Language of the case: English

         Referring court

      Court of Appeal (United Kingdom)

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

         Respondent: WR

         Questions referred

                  1)

                  Is a person (‘P’) who is in physical possession of excise goods at a point when those goods become chargeable to excise duty in Member State B, liable for that excise duty pursuant to Article 33(3) of Directive 2008/118/EC (1) in circumstances where that person:

                              a)

                              had no legal or beneficial interest in the excise goods;

                              b)

                              was transporting the excise goods, for a fee, on behalf of others between Member State A and Member State B; and

                              c)

                              knew that the goods he was in possession of were excise goods but did not know and did not have reason to suspect that the goods had become chargeable to excise duty in Member State B at or prior to the time that they became so chargeable?

                  2)

                  Is the answer to Question 1 different if P did not know that the goods he was in possession of were excise goods?

         (1)  Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC (OJ 2009, L 9, p. 12).


title: Case C-343/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Klagenfurt (Austria) lodged on 30 April 2019 — Verein für Konsumenteninformation v Volkswagen AG

text:
               8.7.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 230/22

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Klagenfurt (Austria) lodged on 30 April 2019 — Verein für Konsumenteninformation v Volkswagen AG
      (Case C-343/19)
      (2019/C 230/27)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Landesgericht Klagenfurt

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Verein für Konsumenteninformation

         Defendant and respondent: Volkswagen AG

         Question referred

      Is point 2 of Article 7 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 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation such as that in the main proceedings, the ‘place where the harmful event occurred’ may be construed as the place in a Member State where the damage occurred, when that damage consists exclusively of financial damage that is the direct result of an unlawful act committed in another Member State?

         (1)  OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1.