title: Case T-36/18: Action brought on 22 January 2018 — Asahi Intecc v EUIPO — Celesio (Celeson)

text:
               19.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/48

         Action brought on 22 January 2018 — Asahi Intecc v EUIPO — Celesio (Celeson)
   (Case T-36/18)
   (2018/C 104/61)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Asahi Intecc Co. Ltd (Nagoya City, Japan) (represented by: T. Schmidpeter, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Celesio AG (Stuttgart, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the mark ‘Celeson’ – International registration designating the European Union No 1 254 798

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 November 2017 in Case R 1004/2017-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               reject the opposition No B 2 644 816 filed by McKesson Europe AG (formerly Celesion AG) to the international registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark Celeson applied for by the applicant;

               —

               order EUIPO to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the applicant for the purposes of the proceedings before the Court;

               —

               order EUIPO and McKesson Europe AG (formerly Celesion AG) each to pay half of the costs necessarily incurred by the applicant for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Artcile 8(1)(b) Regulation No 2017/1001.


title: Case T-102/17: Judgment of the General Court of 1 February 2018 — Cantina e oleificio sociale di San Marzano v EUIPO — Miguel Torres (SANTORO) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — EU figurative mark SANTORO — Earlier EU word mark SANGRE DE TORO — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

text:
               19.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/39

         Judgment of the General Court of 1 February 2018 — Cantina e oleificio sociale di San Marzano v EUIPO — Miguel Torres (SANTORO)
   (Case T-102/17) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - EU figurative mark SANTORO - Earlier EU word mark SANGRE DE TORO - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
   (2018/C 104/51)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Cantina e oleificio sociale di San Marzano (San Marzano di San Giuseppe, Italy) (represented initially by F. Jacobacci and E. Truffo, and subsequently by I. Carli, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Miguel Torres, SA (Vilafranca del Penedés, Spain) (represented by: J. Güell Serra, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 December 2016 (Case R 2018/2015-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Miguel Torres and Cantina e oleificio sociale di San Marzano.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Cantina e oleificio sociale di San Marzano to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 121, 18.4.2017.


title: Case T-55/18: Action brought on 26 January 2018 — NGV v EUIPO (LIEBLINGSWEIN)

text:
               19.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/52

         Action brought on 26 January 2018 — NGV v EUIPO (LIEBLINGSWEIN)
   (Case T-55/18)
   (2018/C 104/66)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: NGV GmbH (Wildeshausen, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch and M. Alber, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘LIEBLINGSWEIN’ — Application for registration No 15 326 515

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 November 2018 in Case R 291/2017-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case T-845/16: Order of the General Court of 23 January 2018 — QG v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Aid granted by the Spanish authorities to certain professional football clubs — Preferential tax rate applied in connection with corporate tax — Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the internal market — No interest in bringing proceedings — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               19.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/41

         Order of the General Court of 23 January 2018 — QG v Commission
   (Case T-845/16) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - State aid - Aid granted by the Spanish authorities to certain professional football clubs - Preferential tax rate applied in connection with corporate tax - Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the internal market - No interest in bringing proceedings - Manifest inadmissibility))
   (2018/C 104/53)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: QG (represented by: L. Ruiz Ezquerra, R. Oncina Borrego, I. Sobrepera Millet and A. Hernández Pardo, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2016) 4046 final of 4 July 2016 on the State aid SA.29769 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) implemented by Spain for certain football clubs.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for a decision that there is no need to adjudicate is dismissed.

               2.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               3.

               There is no longer any need to rule on the applications to intervene submitted by the Kingdom of Spain and Fútbol Club Barcelona.

               4.

               QG shall pay the costs.

               5.

               QG, the European Commission, the Kingdom of Spain and Fútbol Club Barcelona shall each bear their own respective costs relating to the applications to intervene.

      (1)  OJ C 53, 20.2.2017.


title: Case C-634/16 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 24 January 2018 — European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) v European Food SA, Société des produits Nestlé SA (Appeal — EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Word mark FITNESS — Dismissal of the application for a declaration of invalidity)

text:
               19.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/10

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 24 January 2018 — European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) v European Food SA, Société des produits Nestlé SA
   (Case C-634/16 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Word mark FITNESS - Dismissal of the application for a declaration of invalidity))
   (2018/C 104/11)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: M. Rajh, acting as Agent)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Food SA (represented by: I. Speciac, avocat), Société des produits Nestlé SA (represented by: A. Jaeger-Lenz and S. Cobet-Nüse, Rechtsanwältinnen and by A. Lambrecht, Rechtsanwalt)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 86, 20.3.2017.


title: Case C-352/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 9 June 2017 — Petra Dziatkowiak, Thomas Erich Heinz Dziatkowiak v TUIfly GmbH

text:
               19.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/11

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 9 June 2017 — Petra Dziatkowiak, Thomas Erich Heinz Dziatkowiak v TUIfly GmbH
   (Case C-352/17)
   (2018/C 104/12)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring Court

   Amtsgericht Hannover

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Petra Dziatkowiak, Thomas Erich Heinz Dziatkowiak

      Defendant: TUIfly GmbH
   The case was removed from the Register of the Court of Justice by order of the Court of 24 November 2017.


title: Case C-673/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 30 November 2017 — Planet49 GmbH v Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e. V.

text:
               26.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/9

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 30 November 2017 — Planet49 GmbH v Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e. V.
   (Case C-673/17)
   (2018/C 112/13)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Planet49 GmbH

      Defendant: Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e. V.

      Questions referred

               1.

                           a)

                           Does it constitute a valid consent within the meaning of Article 5(3) and Article 2(f) of Directive 2002/58/EC (1) in conjunction with Article 2(h) of Directive 95/46/EC (2) if the storage of information, or access to information already stored in the user’s terminal equipment, is permitted by way of a pre-checked checkbox which the user must unselect to refuse his consent?

                           b)

                           For the purposes of the application of Article 5(3) and of Article 2(f) of Directive 2002/58/EC in conjunction with Article 2(h) of Directive 95/46/EC, does it make a difference whether the information stored or accessed constitutes personal data?

                           c)

                           In the circumstances referred to in Question 1 a), does a valid consent within the meaning of Article 6(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (3) exist?

               2.

               What information does the service provider have to give within the scope of the provision of clear and comprehensive information to the user that has to be undertaken in accordance with Article 5(3) of Directive 2002/58/EC? Does this include the duration of the operation of the cookies and the question of whether third parties are given access to the cookies?

      (1)  Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications) (OJ 2002 L 201, p. 37).

      (2)  Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31).

      (3)  Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ 2016 L 119, p. 1).


title: Case T-879/16: Judgment of the General Court of 8 February 2018 — Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe v EUIPO — Marpefa (Vieta) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU figurative mark Vieta — Genuine use of the trade mark — Decision taken following the annulment by the General Court of an earlier decision — Article 65(6) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 72(6) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Res judicata)

text:
               26.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/30

         Judgment of the General Court of 8 February 2018 — Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe v EUIPO — Marpefa (Vieta)
   (Case T-879/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU figurative mark Vieta - Genuine use of the trade mark - Decision taken following the annulment by the General Court of an earlier decision - Article 65(6) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 72(6) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Res judicata))
   (2018/C 112/38)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, QC)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Marpefa, SL (Barcelona, Spain)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 October 2016 (Case R 1010/2016-4), relating to revocation proceedings between Sony Computer Entertainment Europe Ltd and Marpefa.

      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 4 October 2016 (Case R 1010/2016-4), relating to revocation proceedings between Sony Computer Entertainment Europe Ltd and Marpefa, SL;

               2.

               Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 53, 20.2.2017.


title: Joined Cases C-360/15 and C-31/16: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 30 January 2018 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, Raad van State — Netherlands) — College van Burgemeester en Wethouders van de gemeente Amersfoort v X BV (C-360/15), Visser Vastgoed Beleggingen BV v Raad van de gemeente Appingedam (C-31/16) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Services in the internal market — Directive 2006/123/EC — Scope — Article 2(2)(c) — Exclusion of electronic communications services and networks — Article 4(1) — Concept of ‘service’ — Retail trade in goods — Chapter III — Freedom of establishment of service providers — Applicability in purely internal situations — Article 15 — Requirements to be evaluated — Territorial restriction — Zoning plan prohibiting the activity of retail trade in goods other than bulky goods in geographical zones situated outside the city centre — Protection of the urban environment — Authorisation of electronic communications services and networks — Directive 2002/20/EC — Financial payments attached to rights to install facilities for a public electronic communications network)

text:
               26.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/2

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 30 January 2018 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, Raad van State — Netherlands) — College van Burgemeester en Wethouders van de gemeente Amersfoort v X BV (C-360/15), Visser Vastgoed Beleggingen BV v Raad van de gemeente Appingedam (C-31/16)
   (Joined Cases C-360/15 and C-31/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Services in the internal market - Directive 2006/123/EC - Scope - Article 2(2)(c) - Exclusion of electronic communications services and networks - Article 4(1) - Concept of ‘service’ - Retail trade in goods - Chapter III - Freedom of establishment of service providers - Applicability in purely internal situations - Article 15 - Requirements to be evaluated - Territorial restriction - Zoning plan prohibiting the activity of retail trade in goods other than bulky goods in geographical zones situated outside the city centre - Protection of the urban environment - Authorisation of electronic communications services and networks - Directive 2002/20/EC - Financial payments attached to rights to install facilities for a public electronic communications network))
   (2018/C 112/02)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, Raad van State

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: College van Burgemeester en Wethouders van de gemeente Amersfoort (C-360/15), Visser Vastgoed Beleggingen BV (C-31/16)

      Defendants: X BV (C-360/15), Raad van de gemeente Appingedam (C-31/16)

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 2(2)(c) of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market must be interpreted as meaning that that directive is not applicable to fees/charges for the payment of which liability is connected with the rights of undertakings authorised to provide electronic communications networks and services to install cables for a public electronic communications network.

               2.

               Article 4(1) of Directive 2006/123 must be interpreted as meaning that the activity of retail trade in goods constitutes a ‘service’ for the purposes of that directive.

               3.

               The provisions of Chapter III of Directive 2006/123, on freedom of establishment of providers, must be interpreted as meaning that they also apply to a situation where all the relevant elements are confined to a single Member State.

               4.

               Article 15(1) of Directive 2006/123 must be interpreted as not precluding rules contained in a municipal zoning plan from prohibiting retail trade activity in goods other than bulky goods in geographical zones situated outside the city centre of that municipality, provided that all the conditions laid down in Article 15(3) of that directive are satisfied, which it is for the referring court to determine.

      (1)  OJ C 346, 19.10.2015.

      OJ C 136, 18.4.2016.


title: Case C-261/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 1 February 2018 — Kühne + Nagel International AG, Kühne + Nagel Management AG, Kühne + Nagel Ltd, Kühne + Nagel Ltd, Kühne + Nagel Ltd v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Article 101 TFEU — Price fixing — International air freight forwarding services — Tariff agreement affecting the final price of services)

text:
               26.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/3

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 1 February 2018 — Kühne + Nagel International AG, Kühne + Nagel Management AG, Kühne + Nagel Ltd, Kühne + Nagel Ltd, Kühne + Nagel Ltd v European Commission
   (Case C-261/16 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Article 101 TFEU - Price fixing - International air freight forwarding services - Tariff agreement affecting the final price of services))
   (2018/C 112/03)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellants: Kühne + Nagel International AG, Kühne + Nagel Management AG, Kühne + Nagel Ltd, Kühne + Nagel Ltd, Kühne + Nagel Ltd (represented by: U. Denzel, C. von Köckritz and C. Klöppner, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Dawes, H. Leupold and G. Meessen, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Kühne + Nagel International AG, Kühne + Nagel Management AG, Kühne + Nagel Ltd (Uxbridge (United Kingdom)), Kühne + Nagel Ltd (Shanghai (China)) and Kühne + Nagel Ltd (Hong-Kong (China)) to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 251, 11.7.2016.


title: Case C-728/17 P: Appeal brought on 24 December 2017 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 13 October 2017 in Case T-572/16, Brouillard v Commission

text:
               26.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/20

         Appeal brought on 24 December 2017 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 13 October 2017 in Case T-572/16, Brouillard v Commission
   (Case C-728/17 P)
   (2018/C 112/27)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: P. Mihaylova and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: Alain Laurent Brouillard

      Form of order sought

   The Commission requests the Court to:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2017, Brouillard v Commission (T-572/16);

               —

               dismiss the action brought at first instance;

               —

               order the respondent to pay in full the costs of both sets of proceedings.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   The first ground of appeal alleges an error of law and distortion. That ground is divided into three parts and concerns paragraphs 36, 39, 43 to 56, 62 and 63 of the judgment under appeal.
   By the first part, the Commission claims that the General Court erred in law in the interpretation of the notice of competition. In paragraphs 36, 45 and 47 to 56 of the judgment under appeal, it wrongly took the view, first, that the adjective ‘full’, used in the expression ‘full legal education’, appearing in the notice of competition, did not refer to the content of the diploma required and, second, that the word ‘corresponding’ in the expression ‘a diploma corresponding to a Master’s degree as a minimum’ did not refer to the diploma but to training. Similarly, the Commission considers that a contextual and teleological interpretation does not in any way support the General Court’s findings since the interpretation of the conditions for taking part in a competition must be undertaken in the light of the description of the tasks of the positions to be filled, which were, according to Annex I to the notice of competition, translation tasks to be carried out by ‘highly qualified lawyers’.
   By the second part, the Commission claims that the General Court erred in law in its interpretation of Article 5(3)(c)(i) of the Staff Regulations in paragraphs 46 to 49 and 52 to 53 of the judgment under appeal. The Commission considers that that provision of the Staff Regulations is irrelevant for purposes of recruitment procedures and, in particular, that it does not preclude an administrative authority, when determining the content of a notice of competition, from laying down more stringent participation conditions than the criteria laid down in that provision. Contrary to the General Court’s finding, a notice of competition cannot be interpreted in the light of that provision of the Staff Regulations.
   By the third part, the Commission alleges distortion of the content of the vocational Master’s degree of the University of Poitiers and of the application submitted by the applicant at first instance. The Commission considers that it is manifestly evident from both those items of evidence that the applicant did not have a diploma certifying the completion of a five-year ‘Master 2’ degree in law, as required by the notice of competition. The findings of the General Court in paragraphs 39, 43, 44, 52, 53 and 54 of the judgment under appeal are therefore erroneous.
   The second ground of appeal alleges an error in law in the interpretation of the rules governing the delimitation of the powers of a competition selection board during the verification of the award of a candidate’s diploma. This second ground, which concerns paragraphs 37, 52, 54, 55 and 56 of the judgment under appeal, seeks to challenge the General Court’s reasoning that a selection board must accept the diploma of the applicant at first instance on the sole basis of the national rules governing the award of the diploma.
   The third ground of appeal, which concerns paragraphs 39, 44, 47, 48, 52 and 57 to 61 of the judgment under appeal, alleges infringement of the duty to state reasons in that the General Court failed to make it sufficiently clear on the basis of which documents in the case the applicant at first instance is demonstrated to have been awarded a diploma enabling him to satisfy the condition required by the notice of competition. Moreover, it is submitted, the General Court is inconsistent because, although it stated that a full legal education and the diploma certifying completed university studies were two distinct criteria, it found that a diploma had been awarded, without specifying which document was capable of constituting evidence of the completion of a full legal training. Finally, the General Court did not provide sufficient explanations as to why, in the judgment delivered in Case T-420/13, which now has the force of res judicata, the applicant’s diploma was refused in a tendering procedure for freelance translation services for the Court, even though that same diploma is now being claimed as a basis on which that applicant can be appointed as a professional lawyer-linguist in the translation services of the Court.


title: Case C-106/17: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 31 January 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Szczecinie — Poland) — Paweł Hofsoe v LVM Landwirtschaftlicher Versicherungsverein Münster AG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Article 11(1)(b) and Article 13(2) — Jurisdiction in insurance matters — Scope ratione personae — Concept of ‘injured party’ — Professional in the insurance sector — Not included)

text:
               26.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/5

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 31 January 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Szczecinie — Poland) — Paweł Hofsoe v LVM Landwirtschaftlicher Versicherungsverein Münster AG
   (Case C-106/17) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Article 11(1)(b) and Article 13(2) - Jurisdiction in insurance matters - Scope ratione personae - Concept of ‘injured party’ - Professional in the insurance sector - Not included))
   (2018/C 112/07)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Sąd Okręgowy w Szczecinie

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Paweł Hofsoe

      Defendant: LVM Landwirtschaftlicher Versicherungsverein Münster AG

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 13(2) 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, read in conjunction with Article 11(1)(b) of that regulation, must be interpreted as meaning that it may not be relied on by a natural person, whose professional activity consists, inter alia, in recovering claims for damages from insurers and who relies on a contract for the assignment of a claim concluded with the victim of a road accident, to bring a civil liability action against the insurer of the person responsible for that accident, which has its registered office in a Member State other than the Member State of the place of domicile of the injured party, before a court of the Member State in which the injured party is domiciled.

      (1)  OJ C 202, 26.6.2017.


title: Case C-37/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 19 January 2018 — Vueling Airlines SA v Jean-Luc Poignant

text:
               26.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/23

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 19 January 2018 — Vueling Airlines SA v Jean-Luc Poignant
   (Case C-37/18)
   (2018/C 112/30)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour de cassation

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Vueling Airlines SA

      Respondent: Jean-Luc Poignant

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the interpretation by the Court of Justice of the European Union in its judgment of 27 April 2017, A-Rosa Flussschiff, C-620/15, of Article 14(2)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, (1) as amended and updated by Regulation (EC) No 118/97, (2) as amended by Regulation (EC) No 647/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 April 2005, (3) applicable to a dispute relating to the offence of concealed employment in which E 101 certificates were issued under Article 14(1)(a), pursuant to Article 11(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation No 1408/71, (4) although the situation was covered by Article 14(2)(a)(i), for workers carrying on their activity in the territory of the Member State of which they are nationals and in which the air transport undertaking established in another Member State has a branch, and a mere reading of the E 101 certificate, which refers to an airport as the place where the worker is employed and an air transport undertaking as employer, suggested that that certificate had been obtained fraudulently?

               2.

               In the affirmative, must the principle of the primacy of EU law be interpreted as precluding a national court, bound under its domestic law by the principle that the force of res judicata of a judgment of a criminal court is binding on a civil court, from drawing the appropriate conclusions from a decision of a criminal court which is not compatible with the rules of EU law by ordering, in civil proceedings, an employer to pay damages to a worker solely because of the criminal conviction of that employer for concealed employment?

      (1)  Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1971(II), p. 416).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 amending and updating Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community and Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (OJ 1997 L 28, p. 1).

      (3)  Regulation (EC) No 647/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 April 2005 amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community and (EEC) No 574/72 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (OJ 2005 L 117, p. 1).

      (4)  Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of the Council of 21 March 1972 fixing the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1972(I), p. 160).


title: Case T-70/18: Action brought on 7 February 2018 — Sonova Holding v EUIPO (HEAR THE WORLD)

text:
               26.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/45

         Action brought on 7 February 2018 — Sonova Holding v EUIPO (HEAR THE WORLD)
   (Case T-70/18)
   (2018/C 112/57)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Sonova Holding AG (Stäfa, Switzerland) (represented by: R. Pansch and A. Sabellek, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘HEAR THE WORLD’ — Application for registration No 15 274 426

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 November 2017 in Case R 1645/2017-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case C-710/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 18 December 2017 — CCC — Consorzio Cooperative Costruzioni Soc. Cooperativa v Comune di Tarvisio

text:
               26.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/16

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 18 December 2017 — CCC — Consorzio Cooperative Costruzioni Soc. Cooperativa v Comune di Tarvisio
   (Case C-710/17)
   (2018/C 112/22)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: CCC — Consorzio Cooperative Costruzioni Soc. Cooperativa

      Defendant: Comune di Tarvisio

      Question referred

   Is a provision such as that of Article 53(3) of Legislative Decree No 163 of 16 April 2006 that allows the participation of an undertaking with a ‘named’ design engineer who, since he is not himself a tenderer, may not rely on the capacity of others, compatible with Article 48 of Directive 2004/18/EC of 31 March 2004? (1)

      (1)  Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114).


title: Case T-90/18: Action brought on 19 February 2018 — Guiral Broto v EUIPO — Gastro & Soul (CAFE DEL SOL)

text:
               16.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/30

         Action brought on 19 February 2018 — Guiral Broto v EUIPO — Gastro & Soul (CAFE DEL SOL)
   (Case T-90/18)
   (2018/C 134/43)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Ramón Guiral Broto (Marbella, Spain) (represented by: J. de Castro Hermida, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Gastro & Soul GmbH (Hildesheim, Germany)

      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 ‘Café del Sol’ — European Union trade mark No 6 104 608

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 December 2017 in Case R 1096/2017-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the contested decision and declare the opposition based on the earlier trade mark belonging to the opponent, Mr Ramón Guiral Broto, Spanish trade mark No 2348110, in Class 42 of the International Classification, well founded.

               —

               Uphold the decision of the Opposition Division refusing Community trade mark application No 6 104 608, filed by the German company gastro & soul GmbH, in respect of ‘services for the provision of food and drink, temporary accommodation, catering’ in Class 43 of the International Classification, on the ground that there is a likelihood of confusion on the part of consumers as a result of the coexistence of the marks at issue given the strong verbal similarity and the identity in terms of their application. In the alternative, if the General Court lacks jurisdiction in that regard, it should refer the matter back to the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market, provided that the opposition is deemed to be well founded.

               —

               In the further alternative, (i) annul the contested decision because of inconsistency and infringement of the applicant’s rights of defence and legal certainty by having expressly denied him the possibility of submitting a full translation of the opponent’s earlier trade mark in the context of Case R 1096/2017-4, thereby defeating one of the main purposes of the referral of the case back to EUIPO’s Board of Appeal ordered by the General Court on 13 December 2016 in Case T-549/15, and (ii) order a further referral back to EUIPO’s Board of Appeal to remedy that situation and settle the dispute.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 2017/1001.


201805250241897582018/C 200/064142016CJC20020180611EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL201804176611Case C-414/16: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — Vera Egenberger v Evangelisches Werk für Diakonie und Entwicklung eV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 2000/78/CE — Equal treatment — Difference of treatment on grounds of religion or belief — Occupational activities within churches and other organisations the ethos of which is based on religion or belief — Religion or belief constituting a genuine, legitimate and justified occupational requirement, having regard to the organisation’s ethos — Concept — Nature and context of the activities — Article 17 TFEU — Articles 10, 21 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)
 ---documentbreak--- C2002018EN610120180417EN00066161Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — Vera Egenberger v Evangelisches Werk für Diakonie und Entwicklung eV
   (Case C-414/16) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 2000/78/CE — Equal treatment — Difference of treatment on grounds of religion or belief — Occupational activities within churches and other organisations the ethos of which is based on religion or belief — Religion or belief constituting a genuine, legitimate and justified occupational requirement, having regard to the organisation’s ethos — Concept — Nature and context of the activities — Article 17 TFEU — Articles 10, 21 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)’2018/C 200/06Language of the case: German
      Referring court

   Bundesarbeitsgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Vera Egenberger

      Defendant: Evangelisches Werk für Diakonie und Entwicklung eV

      Operative part of the judgment

            1.

            Article 4(2) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, read in conjunction with Articles 9 and 10 of the directive and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that, where a church or other organisation whose ethos is based on religion or belief asserts, in support of an act or decision such as the rejection of an application for employment with it, that by reason of the nature of the activities concerned or the context in which the activities are to be carried out, religion constitutes a genuine, legitimate and justified occupational requirement, having regard to the ethos of the church or organisation, it must be possible for such an assertion to be the subject, if need be, of effective judicial review by which it can be ensured that the criteria set out in Article 4(2) of that directive are satisfied in the particular case.

            2.

            Article 4(2) of Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as meaning that the genuine, legitimate and justified occupational requirement it refers to is a requirement that is necessary and objectively dictated, having regard to the ethos of the church or organisation concerned, by the nature of the occupational activity concerned or the circumstances in which it is carried out, and cannot cover considerations which have no connection with that ethos or with the right of autonomy of the church or organisation. That requirement must comply with the principle of proportionality.

            3.

            A national court hearing a dispute between two individuals is obliged, where it is not possible for it to interpret the applicable national law in conformity with Article 4(2) of Directive 2000/78, to ensure within its jurisdiction the judicial protection deriving for individuals from Articles 21 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and to guarantee the full effectiveness of those articles by disapplying if need be any contrary provision of national law.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 419, 14.11.2016.


201805250501897042018/C 200/582312018TC20020180611EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180404464611Case T-231/18: Action brought on 4 April 2018 — Et Djili Soy Dzhihangir Ibryam v EUIPO — Lupu (Djili)
 ---documentbreak--- C2002018EN4610120180404EN0058461461Action brought on 4 April 2018 — Et Djili Soy Dzhihangir Ibryam v EUIPO — Lupu (Djili)
   (Case T-231/18)2018/C 200/58Language in which the application was lodged: English
      Parties

      Applicant: Et Djili Soy Dzhihangir Ibryam (Dulovo, Bulgaria) (represented by: C. Romiţan, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Victor Lupu (Bucharest, Romania)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark Djili — Application for registration No 15 497 662

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 January 2018 in Case R 1902/2017-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

            —

            annul the contested decision;

            —

            reject Lupu Victor’s appeal;

            —

            order the opponent and the appellant Lupu Victor to bear the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law

            —

            The Board of Appeal erred in finding that there was an aural similarity between the signs;

            —

            The Board of Appeal erred in finding that the conceptual comparison had no relevance in the case.


201806080311931532018/C 221/432722018TC22120180625EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180427363722Case T-272/18: Action brought on 27 April 2018 — EBM Technologies v EUIPO (MobiPACS)
 ---documentbreak--- C2212018EN3620120180427EN0043362372Action brought on 27 April 2018 — EBM Technologies v EUIPO (MobiPACS)
   (Case T-272/18)2018/C 221/43Language of the case: German
      Parties

      Applicant: EBM Technologies Inc. (Taipei City, Taiwan) (represented by: J. Liesegang, M. Jost and N. Lang, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘MobiPACS’ — Application for registration No 16 400 061

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 February 2018 in Case R 2145/2017-2

      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 42(1), read in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b), of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.


201806080131931612018/C 221/322982017TC22120180625EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180418262721Case T-298/17: Order of the General Court of 18 April 2018 — Iordăchescu and Others v Parliament and Others (Action for annulment — Directive 2014/40/EU — Approximation of laws — Manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products and related products — Period allowed for commencing proceedings — Delay — Claim for damages — Application initiating proceedings — Disregard of the procedural requirements — Inadmissibility — Lack of jurisdiction)
 ---documentbreak--- C2212018EN2610120180418EN0032261272Order of the General Court of 18 April 2018 — Iordăchescu and Others v Parliament and Others
   (Case T-298/17) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Action for annulment — Directive 2014/40/EU — Approximation of laws — Manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products and related products — Period allowed for commencing proceedings — Delay — Claim for damages — Application initiating proceedings — Disregard of the procedural requirements — Inadmissibility — Lack of jurisdiction)’2018/C 221/32Language of the case: Romanian
      Parties

      Applicants: Adrian Iordăchescu (Bucharest, Romania), Florina Iordăchescu (Bucharest), Mihaela Iordăchescu (Bucharest) and Cristinel Iordăchescu (Bucharest) (represented by: A. Cuculis, lawyer)

      Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: L. Visaggio and C. Ionescu Dima, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: E. Karlsson and O. Segnana, acting as Agents) and European Commission (represented by: H. Stancu and J. Tomkin, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   First, application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the partial annulment of Directive 2014/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products and repealing Directive 2001/37/EC (OJ 2014 L 127, p. 1) and, second, application pursuant to Article 268 TFEU for compensation for the harm which the applicants claim to have suffered.

      Operative part of the order

            1.

            The action is dismissed.

            2.

            Mr Adrian Iordăchescu, Ms Florina Iordăchescu, Ms Mihaela Iordăchescu and Mr Cristinel Iordăchescu shall pay the costs.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 256, 7.8.2017.


201806080191931222018/C 221/342302018TC22120180625EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180504272822Case T-230/18 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 4 May 2018 — Czarnecki v Parliament (Interim measures — Law governing the institutions — Vice-President of the European Parliament — Decision of the Parliament to end a Vice-President’s term of office — Application for interim measures — Injunction — Inadmissibility)
 ---documentbreak--- C2212018EN2720120180504EN0034272282Order of the President of the General Court of 4 May 2018 — Czarnecki v Parliament
   (Case T-230/18 R)
   ‛(Interim measures — Law governing the institutions — Vice-President of the European Parliament — Decision of the Parliament to end a Vice-President’s term of office — Application for interim measures — Injunction — Inadmissibility)’2018/C 221/34Language of the case: French
      Parties

      Applicant: Ryszard Czarnecki (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Görlitz and S. Alonso de León, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application based on Articles 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU, seeking, first, a suspension of operation of the decision of the European Parliament of 7 February 2018 approving the early cessation of the applicant’s role as Vice-President of the Parliament and, secondly, an order requiring the Parliament to allow the applicant to remain in office as Vice-President of the Parliament.

      Operative part of the order

            1.

            The application for interim measures is dismissed.

            2.

            The costs are reserved.


201806080471931452018/C 221/041262018CJC22120180625EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL201802163531Case C-126/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Szekszárdi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 16 February 2018 — Dalmandi Mezőgazdasági Zrt. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága
 ---documentbreak--- C2212018EN310120180216EN00043153Request for a preliminary ruling from the Szekszárdi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 16 February 2018 — Dalmandi Mezőgazdasági Zrt. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága
   (Case C-126/18)2018/C 221/04Language of the case: Hungarian
      Referring court

   Szekszárdi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Dalmandi Mezőgazdasági Zrt.

      Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

      Questions referred

            1.

            Is a judicial practice of a Member State pursuant to which, when the relevant default-interest provisions are examined, it is proceeded on the basis that the national tax authority has not committed an infringement (failure to act) — that is, it has not delayed payment as regards the non-recoverable part of the value added tax (‘VAT’) … on the taxable persons’ unpaid purchases — because when that tax authority adopted its decision, the national legislation infringing Community law was in force and it was not until later that the Court of Justice declared that the requirement laid down in that legislation did not comply with Community law, consistent with the provisions of Community law, with the provisions of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (
                  1
               ) (‘the VAT Directive’) (having regard in particular to Article 183 thereof), and with the principles of effectiveness, direct effect and equivalence? Accordingly, the national practice accepted that the application of that requirement laid down in the national legislation infringing EU law was quasi-compliant with the law until the point at which the national legislature formally repealed the requirement.

            2.

            Are the legislation and practice of a Member State which, when the relevant default-interest provisions are examined, distinguish between whether the tax authority failed to refund the tax in compliance with the national provisions then in force — which, moreover, infringed Community law — or whether it failed to do so in breach of such provisions and which, as regards the amount of the interest accrued on the VAT whose refund could not be claimed within a reasonable period due to a national-law requirement declared contrary to EU law by the Court of Justice, set out two definable periods, with the result that,

                     —

                     in the first period, taxable persons only have the right to receive default interest at the central bank base rate, in view of the fact that since the Hungarian legislation contrary to Community law was still then in force, the Hungarian tax authorities did not act unlawfully by not authorising the payment within a reasonable period of the VAT included in the invoices, whereas

                     —

                     in the second period interest double the central bank base rate — applicable moreover in the event of delay in the legal system of the Member State in question — must be paid only for the late payment of the default interest corresponding to the first period consistent with Community law, in particular with the provisions of the VAT Directive (having regard in particular to Article 183 thereof), and with the principles of equivalence, effectiveness and proportionality?

            3.

            Is a practice of a Member State which sets as the initial date for the calculation of default interest (compound interest, or interest on interest) accrued in accordance with a Member State’s provisions on the delay in payment of the default interest on the tax retained contrary to EU law (interest on the VAT; in this case, the principal) not the original date of accrual of the interest on the VAT (principal), but a later point in time, consistent with Community law, with Article 183 of the VAT Directive and with the principle of effectiveness, taking into account in particular the fact that a claim for interest on taxes retained, or not refunded, contrary to EU law is a substantive right which flows directly from EU law itself?

            4.

            Is a practice of a Member State pursuant to which the taxable person must submit a separate claim if it claims interest accrued because of a tax authority’s default, while in other cases where default interest is claimed such a separate claim is not required because interest is granted automatically, consistent with Community law, with Article 183 of the VAT Directive and with the principle of effectiveness?

            5.

            If the previous question is answered in the affirmative, is a practice of a Member State pursuant to which compound interest (interest on interest) for the delay in the payment of interest on the tax retained contrary to EU law as declared by the Court of Justice (interest on the VAT; in this case, the principal) may only be granted if the taxable person submits a special claim whereby interest is not specifically claimed, but rather the amount of the tax indebted on the unpaid purchases precisely at the time when the Member State’s rule contrary to EU law which required the VAT due on account of that failure to pay to be retained was repealed under national law, although the interest on the VAT which serves as the basis for claiming the compound interest as regards the tax return periods prior to the special claim has already accrued and has still not been paid, consistent with Community law, with Article 183 of the VAT Directive and with the principle of effectiveness?

            6.

            If the previous question is answered in the affirmative, is a practice of a Member State which entails the loss of the right to receive compound interest (interest on interest) for the delay in the payment of interest on the tax retained contrary to EU law as declared by the Court of Justice (interest on the VAT; in this case, the principal) in relation to claims for interest on VAT which was not the subject of the VAT return period affected by the limitation period laid down for the submission of the special claim, since such interest had accrued beforehand, consistent with Community law, with Article 183 of the VAT Directive and with the principle of effectiveness?

            7.

            Is a practice of a Member State which definitively deprives the taxable person of the possibility of claiming interest on the tax retained in accordance with national legislation subsequently declared contrary to Community law and which prohibited claiming the VAT in respect of certain unpaid purchases, with the result that

                     —

                     [pursuant to that practice] the claim for interest was not considered well-founded at the point in time when [the refund of] the tax was demandable, on the basis that the provision subsequently declared contrary to Community law was in force (on the ground that there had been no delay and that the tax authority had simply applied the law in force),

                     —

                     and subsequently, when the provision declared contrary to Community law and which limited the right to refund had been repealed in the national legal system, on the basis of being time-barred, consistent with Community law and with Article 183 of the VAT Directive (taking into account in particular the principle of effectiveness and the character of a substantive right of the claim for interest for the taxes wrongfully not returned)?

            8.

            Is a practice of a Member State pursuant to which the possibility of claiming the default interest which must be paid on the interest on the VAT (principal) to which the taxable person is entitled in respect of the tax not refunded when it was originally demandable, due to a national-law rule subsequently declared contrary to Community law, is made dependent, for the entirety of the period between 2005 and 2011, upon whether the taxable person is currently in a position to request the refund of the VAT for the tax return period during which the provision contrary to Community law in question was repealed in the national legal system (September 2011), although the payment of the interest on the VAT (principal) had not occurred before that point in time nor has occurred subsequently, before the claim is brought before the national court, consistent with Community law and with Article 183 of the VAT Directive and with the principle of effectiveness?

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


201806220591970182018/C 240/602862018TC24020180709EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180507525211Case T-286/18: Action brought on 7 May 2018 — Azarov v Council
 ---documentbreak--- C2402018EN5210120180507EN0060521521Action brought on 7 May 2018 — Azarov v Council
   (Case T-286/18)2018/C 240/60Language of the case: German
      Parties

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

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

            —

            Annul, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/333 of 5 March 2018 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2018 L 63, p. 48) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/326 of 5 March 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2018 L 63, p. 5), in so far as they relate to the applicant;

            —

            order specific measures of organisation pursuant to Article 64 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court; and

            —

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

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

            1.

            First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality
            The applicant claims that the restrictive measures, which have now been ordered for the fifth time, are clearly disproportionate.

            2.

            Second plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment
            The applicant submits that the Council did not have a sufficiently solid factual basis, as required pursuant to case-law, in order to take the decision to extend the restrictive measures.


201806220771970262018/C 240/7412018TC24020180709EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180504636312Case T-1/18: Order of the General Court of 4 May 2018 — Deutsche Lufthansa v Commission
 ---documentbreak--- C2402018EN6320120180504EN0074632631Order of the General Court of 4 May 2018 — Deutsche Lufthansa v Commission
   (Case T-1/18) (
         1
      )2018/C 240/74Language of the case: EnglishThe President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.
   (
         1
      )	OJ C 63, 19.2.2018.


201806220111970732018/C 240/302942018CJC24020180709EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180427262611Case C-294/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Markkinaoikeus (Finland) lodged on 27 April 2018 — Oulun Sähkönmyynti Oy
 ---documentbreak--- C2402018EN2610120180427EN0030261261Request for a preliminary ruling from the Markkinaoikeus (Finland) lodged on 27 April 2018 — Oulun Sähkönmyynti Oy
   (Case C-294/18)2018/C 240/30Language of the case: Finnish
      Referring court

   Markkinaoikeus

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Oulun Sähkönmyynti Oy

      Other party: Energiavirasto

      Questions referred

            1.

            Is Article 11(1) of Directive 2012/27/EU (
                  1
               ) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on energy efficiency, amending Directives 2009/125/EC and 2010/30/EU and repealing Directives 2004/8/EC and 2006/32/EC to be interpreted as meaning that the granting of a discount on a basic electricity charge which is based on the method of billing chosen by the final customer means that billing and billing information has not been given free of charge to final customers other than those receiving the discount?

            2.

            If the answer to the first question referred is in the negative and the grant of the abovementioned discount is permitted, does it follow from Directive 2012/27/EU that, in order to determine whether the discount is permitted, additional special conditions must be taken into account, such as whether the discount corresponds to the cost savings achieved with the chosen type of billing, whether or not the discount is given with each bill, or whether the discount can be given to the group of final customers who make cost savings with their choice of billing method?

            3.

            If the grant of a discount referred to in Question 1 means that final customers other than those who have chosen a particular billing method would be required to pay charges contrary to Article 11(1) of Directive 2012/27/EU, are there any specific requirements of EU law to be taken into account in the decision on reimbursement of the charges?

      (
         1
      )	OJ 2012 L 315, p. 1.


201806220461970832018/C 240/75522018TC24020180709EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180516636313Case T-52/18: Order of the General Court of 16 May 2018 — Teollisuuden Voima v Commission
 ---documentbreak--- C2402018EN6330120180516EN0075633631Order of the General Court of 16 May 2018 — Teollisuuden Voima v Commission
   (Case T-52/18) (
         1
      )2018/C 240/75Language of the case: EnglishThe President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.
   (
         1
      )	OJ C 112, 26.3.2018.


201806220671970852018/C 240/454192017TC24020180709EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180518414111Case T-419/17: Judgment of the General Court of 18 May 2018 — Mendes v EUIPO — Actial Farmaceutica (VSL#3) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark VSL#3 — Trade mark having become a common name in the trade for a product or service for which it is registered — Mark liable to mislead the public — Article 51(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
 ---documentbreak--- C2402018EN4110120180518EN0045411411Judgment of the General Court of 18 May 2018 — Mendes v EUIPO — Actial Farmaceutica (VSL#3)
   (Case T-419/17) (
         1
      )
   ‛(EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark VSL#3 — Trade mark having become a common name in the trade for a product or service for which it is registered — Mark liable to mislead the public — Article 51(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))’2018/C 240/45Language of the case: Italian
      Parties

      Applicant: Mendes SA (Lugano, Switzerland) (represented by: G. Carpineti, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the Court: Actial Farmaceutica Srl (Rome, Italy) (represented by: S. Giudici, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 May 2017 (Case R 1306/2016-2), relating to revocation proceedings between Mendes and Actial Farmaceutica.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

            1.

            Dismisses the action;

            2.

            Orders Mendes SA to bear the costs.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 277, 21.8.2017.


201806290671986692018/C 249/283402016TC24920180716EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180531232421Case T-340/16: Judgment of the General Court of 31 May 2018 — Flatworld Solutions v EUIPO — Outsource Professional Services (Outsource 2 India) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — European Union figurative mark Outsource 2 India — Bad faith — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
 ---documentbreak--- C2492018EN2310120180531EN0028231242Judgment of the General Court of 31 May 2018 — Flatworld Solutions v EUIPO — Outsource Professional Services (Outsource 2 India)
   (Case T-340/16) (
         1
      )
   ‛(EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — European Union figurative mark Outsource 2 India — Bad faith — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)’2018/C 249/28Language of the case: English
      Parties

      Applicant: Flatworld Solutions Pvt Ltd (Bangalore, India) (represented by: S.O. Gillert, K. Vanden Bossche, B. Köhn-Gerdes and J. Schumacher, lawyers)

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

      Intervener: Outsource Professional Services Ltd (Friedrichshafen, Germany), given leave to replace the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO (represented by: A. Kempter, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 April 2016 (Case R 611/2015-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Flatworld Solutions and Outsource2India.

      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 15 April 2016 (Case R 611/2015-4);

            2.

            Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Flatworld Solutions Pvt Ltd;

            3.

            Orders Outsource Professional Services Ltd to bear its own costs.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 305, 22.8.2016.


201806290201986742018/C 249/162682018CJC24920180716EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180418111111Case C-268/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bacău (Romania) lodged on 18 April 2018 — SC Onlineshop SRL v Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală (ANAF), Direcția Generală a Vămilor
 ---documentbreak--- C2492018EN1110120180418EN0016111111Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bacău (Romania) lodged on 18 April 2018 — SC Onlineshop SRL v Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală (ANAF), Direcția Generală a Vămilor
   (Case C-268/18)2018/C 249/16Language of the case: Romanian
      Referring court

   Curtea de Apel Bacău

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: SC Onlineshop SRL

      Respondents: Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală (ANAF), Direcția Generală a Vămilor

      Questions referred

            1.

            Must the Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, (
                  1
               ) as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2016/1821 of 6 October 2016, (
                  2
               ) be interpreted as meaning that apparatus such as the GPS navigation system PNI S 506, at issue in the present dispute, is to be classified under tariff subheading 8526 91, subheading 8526 91 20, or heading 8528, subheading 8528 59 00, thereof?

            2.

            Are the versions of the Combined Nomenclature, as amended, successively, by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 698/2012 (
                  3
               ) and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 459/2014, (
                  4
               ) relevant for the purposes of determining the correct tariff classification of apparatus such as the navigation system at issue in the present dispute, in the sense that they may be applicable, by analogy, to products which are similar to the navigation system in question, and does the application by analogy of those provisions support the interpretation of the [Combined Nomenclature] provided by the customs authority?

      (
         1
      )	Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1).
   (
         2
      )	Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1821 of 6 October 2016 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2016 L 294, p. 1).
   (
         3
      )	Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 698/2012 of 25 July 2012 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (OJ 2012 L 203, p. 34).
   (
         4
      )	Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 459/2014 of 29 April 2014 amending certain regulations on the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature (OJ 2014 L 133, p. 43).


title: Case C-213/17: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats Amsterdam — the Netherlands) — X v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 — Determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection made in one of the Member States by a third-country national — Articles 17, 18, 23 and 24 — Prior international protection procedure ongoing in one Member State — New application in another Member State — Take back request not made within the prescribed periods — Surrender of the person concerned for criminal prosecution)

text:
               27.8.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/7

      Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats Amsterdam — the Netherlands) — X v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie
      (Case C-213/17) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 - Determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection made in one of the Member States by a third-country national - Articles 17, 18, 23 and 24 - Prior international protection procedure ongoing in one Member State - New application in another Member State - Take back request not made within the prescribed periods - Surrender of the person concerned for criminal prosecution))
      (2018/C 301/08)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Referring court

      Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats Amsterdam

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: X

         Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Article 23(3) of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person must be interpreted as meaning that the Member State in which a new application for international protection has been lodged is responsible for examining that application when no take back request has been made by that Member State within the periods laid down in Article 23(2) of that regulation, even though another Member State was responsible for examining applications for international protection lodged previously and the appeal brought against the rejection of one of those applications was pending before a court of that other Member State when those periods expired.

                  2.

                  Article 18(2) of Regulation No 604/2013 must be interpreted as meaning that the making by a Member State of a take back request in respect of a third-country national who is staying on its territory without a residence document does not require that Member State to suspend its examination of an appeal brought against the rejection of an application for international protection lodged previously, and subsequently to terminate that examination in the event that the requested Member State agrees to that request.

                  3.

                  Article 24(5) of Regulation No 604/2013 must be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, a Member State making a take back request on the basis of Article 24 of that regulation, following the expiry, in the requested Member State, of the periods laid down in Article 23(2) thereof, is not required to inform the authorities of that requested Member State that an appeal brought against the rejection of an application for international protection lodged previously is pending before a court of the requesting Member State.

                  4.

                  Article 17(1) and Article 24 of Regulation No 604/2013 must be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings at the time the transfer decision was made, in which an applicant for international protection has been surrendered by one Member State to another Member State under a European arrest warrant and is staying on the territory of that second Member State without having lodged a new application for international protection there, that second Member State may request that first Member State to take back that applicant and is not required to decide to examine the application lodged by that applicant.

         (1)  OJ C 239, 24.7.2017.


title: Case T-434/18: Action brought on 13 July 2018 — Vans v EUIPO (ULTRARANGE)

text:
               27.8.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/45

      Action brought on 13 July 2018 — Vans v EUIPO (ULTRARANGE)
      (Case T-434/18)
      (2018/C 301/60)
      Language in which the application was lodged: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Vans, Inc. (Costa Mesa, California, United States) (represented by: M. Hirsch and M. Metzner, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Mark at issue: EU word mark ULTRARANGE — Application No 16 665 663

         Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 April 2018 in Case R 2544/2017-2

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay the costs.

         Plea in law

                  —

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


title: Case T-577/17: Order of the General Court of 2 July 2018 — thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel and thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel Ugo v Commission (Action for annulment — Customs union — Authorisation for inward processing — Risk of adverse effect on the essential interests of EU producers — Article 211(6) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 — Examination of the economic conditions — Scope of the Commission’s conclusions — Act not open to challenge — Inadmissibility)

text:
               27.8.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/34

      Order of the General Court of 2 July 2018 — thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel and thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel Ugo v Commission
      (Case T-577/17) (1)

      ((Action for annulment - Customs union - Authorisation for inward processing - Risk of adverse effect on the essential interests of EU producers - Article 211(6) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 - Examination of the economic conditions - Scope of the Commission’s conclusions - Act not open to challenge - Inadmissibility))
      (2018/C 301/45)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicants: thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel GmbH (Gelsenkirchen, Germany) and thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel Ugo (Isbergues, France) (represented by: M. Günes, lawyer)

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

         Re:

      Action under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of the Commission’s alleged decision ostensibly contained in the minutes of the sixth meeting of the Customs Expert Group Section ‘Special Procedures other than transit’ of 2 May 2017 concluding that the essential interests of EU producers would not be adversely affected by an authorisation for inward processing of certain grain-oriented electrical steel products requested by Euro-Mit Staal BV.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The action is dismissed.

                  2.

                  There is no longer any need to adjudicate on Euro-Mit Staal BV’s application to intervene.

                  3.

                  In addition to bearing its own costs, the European Commission shall pay the costs incurred by thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel GmbH and thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel Ugo.

                  4.

                  Euro-Mit Staal BV shall bear its own costs relating to the application to intervene.

         (1)  OJ C 347, 16.10.2017.


title: Case C-170/18 P: Appeal brought on 2 March 2018 by CJ against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 13 December 2017 in Case T-692/16: CJ v European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC)

text:
               27.8.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/13

      Appeal brought on 2 March 2018 by CJ against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 13 December 2017 in Case T-692/16: CJ v European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC)
      (Case C-170/18 P)
      (2018/C 301/17)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

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

         Other party to the proceedings: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC)

         Form of order sought

      The appellant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  set aside the judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2017 in Case T-692/16 CJ v ECDC (ECLI:EU:T:2017:894) in whole;

                  —

                  consequently, in the event that the appeal is declared well founded, annul the new termination decision of 2 December 2015 and award the appellant the emoluments and monetary compensation claimed before the General Court plus statutory interest;

                  —

                  order the ECDC to pay all costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      First plea in law, alleging that the General Court misinterpreted his argument, distorted the evidence and erred in legally classifying the facts in holding that circumstances had not substantively changed between the date of issue of the annulled termination decision and that of the new termination decision so as to prevent ECDC from reissuing the annulled termination decision.
      Second plea in law, alleging that the General Court misinterpreted his argument, failed to state sufficient reasons, erred in legally classifying the facts and misinterpreted Article 266 TFEU in holding that the new termination decision was not disproportional under Article 5(4) TEU.
      Third plea in law, alleging that the General Court gave the scope of res judicata an overly extensive meaning.
      Fourth plea in law, alleging that the General Court:

                  —

                  misinterpreted the judgment of the Civil Tribunal in Joined Cases F-159/12 and F-161/12 CJ v ECDC and understood the resulting res judicata in an overly extensive manner,

                  —

                  misinterpreted Article 22a(3) of the Staff Regulations on the protection of whistleblowers by failing to give useful effect thereto.

            Fifth plea in law, alleging that the General Court misinterpreted the rule on the noncontractual liability of the EU, subsidiarily erroneously legally classified the facts, when it held that the contested decision was not reasoned in a manner causing non-material damage to the appellant.


title: Case T-719/17 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 22 June 2018 — FMC v Commission (Application for interim measures — Plant protection products — Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1496 — Non-renewal of approval of the active substance DPX KE 459 (flupyrsulfuron-methyl) — Application for suspension of operation — Lack of urgency — Balancing of interests)

text:
               27.8.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/35

      Order of the President of the General Court of 22 June 2018 — FMC v Commission
      (Case T-719/17 R)
      ((Application for interim measures - Plant protection products - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1496 - Non-renewal of approval of the active substance DPX KE 459 (flupyrsulfuron-methyl) - Application for suspension of operation - Lack of urgency - Balancing of interests))
      (2018/C 301/46)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: FMC Corp. (established in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States) (represented by: D. Waelbroeck, I. Antypas and A. Accarain, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Koleva, A. Lewis and I. Naglis, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application based on Articles 278 and 279 TFEU, seeking suspension of the operation of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1496 of 23 August 2017 concerning the non-renewal of approval of the active substance DPX KE 459 (flupyrsulfuron-methyl), in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 (OJ 2017 L 218, p. 7)

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The application for interim measures is dismissed.

                  2.

                  The costs are reserved.


title: Case C-297/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark (Austria) lodged on 2 May 2018 — Humbert Jörg Köfler and Others

text:
               27.8.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/14

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark (Austria) lodged on 2 May 2018 — Humbert Jörg Köfler and Others
      (Case C-297/18)
      (2018/C 301/18)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellants: Humbert Jörg Köfler, Wolfgang Leitner, Joachim Schönbeck, Wolfgang Semper

         Respondent authority: Bezirkshauptmannschaft Murtal

         Interested party: Finanzpolizei

         Question referred

      Must Article 49(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as precluding a national provision which provides for fines with no upper limit, especially high minimum penalties or several years’ imprisonment for non-collectible fines for offences committed as a result of negligence?


title: Case T-13/17: Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2018 — Europa Terra Nostra v Parliament (Law governing the institutions — European Parliament — Decision awarding a grant to a political foundation — Pre-financing amount fixed at 33 % of the maximum amount of the grant awarded — Obligation to provide a pre-financing bank guarantee — Financial Regulation — Rules for the application of the Financial Regulation — Regulation (EC) No 2004/2003 on the regulations governing political parties at European level and the rules regarding their funding — Proportionality — Misuse of powers)

text:
               27.8.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/28

      Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2018 — Europa Terra Nostra v Parliament
      (Case T-13/17) (1)

      ((Law governing the institutions - European Parliament - Decision awarding a grant to a political foundation - Pre-financing amount fixed at 33 % of the maximum amount of the grant awarded - Obligation to provide a pre-financing bank guarantee - Financial Regulation - Rules for the application of the Financial Regulation - Regulation (EC) No 2004/2003 on the regulations governing political parties at European level and the rules regarding their funding - Proportionality - Misuse of powers))
      (2018/C 301/36)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Europa Terra Nostra eV (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: P. Richter, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Görlitz, C. Burgos and S. Alves, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment in part of Decision FINS-2017-30 of the European Parliament of 12 December 2016 relating to the award of a grant to the applicant, in so far as that decision limits the pre-financing amount to 33 % of the maximum amount of the grant and makes its payment conditional on the provision of a bank guarantee.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Europa Terra Nostra eV to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 63, 27.2.2017.


title: Case T-447/18: Action brought on 18 July 2018 — TUIfly v Commission

text:
               27.8.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/45

      Action brought on 18 July 2018 — TUIfly v Commission
      (Case T-447/18)
      (2018/C 301/61)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: TUIfly GmbH (Langenhagen, Germany) (represented by: L. Giesberts and M. Gayger, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul Articles 7 and 8 and Articles 9, 10 and 11, in so far as the latter relate to Articles 7 and 8, of Commission Decision (EU) 2018/628 of 11 November 2016 on State aid SA.24221(2011/C) (ex 2011/NN) implemented by Austria for the Klagenfurt airport, Ryanair and other airlines using the airport (OJ 2018 L 107, p. 1);

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging that the decision breaches Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the principle of sound administration and the applicant’s rights of defence, because the Commission failed to grant the applicant access to the file of the investigation and to place the applicant in a position in which it could effectively defend itself.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging that the decision breaches Article 107(1) TFEU, inasmuch as the Commission failed to demonstrate that the applicant was selectively favoured.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging that the decision breaches Article 107(1) TFEU, inasmuch as the Commission exceeded, from a procedural point of view, its margin of discretion in applying the market economy investor principle.
                  In this regard, the applicant submits that the Commission, contrary to procedural requirements, erred in applying the strict standard of the 2014 aviation guidelines in its examination, although the relevant facts relate to the earlier years 2003 to 2009.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging that the decision breaches Article 107(1) TFEU, inasmuch as the Commission exceeded its margin of discretion in applying the market economy investor principle by insufficiently establishing the facts.
                  In this regard, the applicant submits that the Commission improperly concluded from the absence of a comprehensive business plan with regard to agreements entered into with the applicant that there was allegedly no strategy for ensuring the profitability of Klagenfurt airport (‘KLU’) and that it carried out manifestly contradictory factual assessments in the decision with regard to KLU’s long-term profitability strategy.

                  5.

                  Fifth plea in law, alleging that the decision breaches Article 107(1) TFEU, inasmuch as the Commission exceeded its margin of discretion in applying the market economy investor principle by insufficiently establishing the facts in the context of its ex ante profitability analysis which was drawn up subsequently.
                  In this regard, the applicant claims that the Commission erred in not taking into account, as airport revenue, the aid-rules-compliant provision of aid to KLU for the purposes of financing its marketing measures. Furthermore, the Commission did not sufficiently assess the market value of the services provided by the applicant and did not take them into account in the decision, even though the services in question were provided by the applicant at prices reflecting normal market conditions.

                  6.

                  Sixth plea in law, alleging that the decision breaches Article 107(3) TFEU, inasmuch as the Commission, contrary to procedural requirements, applied a disproportionately strict standard, when assessing justification which does not correspond to its legal practice at the time when the marketing agreements were entered into.

                  7.

                  Seventh plea in law, alleging that the decision breaches Article 107(3) TFEU, inasmuch as the Commission did not fully investigate the facts justifying the alleged aid.
                  In this regard, the applicant submits that the Commission disregarded the aid-rules-compliant provision of aid to KLU for the purpose of justifying the aid provided to the applicant. Furthermore, the Commission failed to take into consideration, in its examination of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU, the significance of the marketing agreements in relation to regional and transport policy as well as the considerable positive effects for the regional economy connected with it.


title: Case C-378/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 8 June 2018 — Landwirtschaftskammer Niedersachsen v Reinhard Westphal

text:
               27.8.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/14

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 8 June 2018 — Landwirtschaftskammer Niedersachsen v Reinhard Westphal
      (Case C-378/18)
      (2018/C 301/19)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Bundesverwaltungsgericht

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Landwirtschaftskammer Niedersachsen

         Defendant: Reinhard Westphal

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Does the prescription period within the meaning of Article 49(6) of Regulation (EC) No 2419/2001 (1) begin with the payment of the aid or is the beginning of that period governed by the first sentence of the second subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95? (2)

                  2.

                  Are the prescription rules under Article 49(6) of Regulation (EC) No 2419/2001 or Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 provisions which impose administrative penalties within the meaning of the second sentence of Article 2(2) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95?

                  3.

                  Can Article 52a of Regulation (EC) No 2419/2001 with its provision regarding the retroactive application of the prescription rule of Article 49(5) of Regulation (EC) No 2419/2001 also be applied analogously to Article 49(6) of Regulation (EC) No 2419/2001?
                  If the first sentence of the second subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 is applicable (first question), the other questions do not need to be answered; if it is not applicable, the third question becomes devoid of object if the second question is answered in the affirmative.

         (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2419/2001 of 11 December 2001 laying down detailed rules for applying the integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes established by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 (OJ 2001 L 327, p. 11).

         (2)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests (OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1).


title: Case C-217/17 P: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 5 July 2018 — Mast-Jägermeister SE v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (Appeal — Community design — Application for registration of designs representing beakers — Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Article 36(1)(c) — Graphic representation — Articles 45 and 46 — Attribution of a date of filing — Conditions — Regulation (EC) No 2245/2002 — Article 4(1)(e) and Article 10(1) and (2))

text:
               27.8.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/8

      Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 5 July 2018 — Mast-Jägermeister SE v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
      (Case C-217/17 P) (1)

      ((Appeal - Community design - Application for registration of designs representing beakers - Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Article 36(1)(c) - Graphic representation - Articles 45 and 46 - Attribution of a date of filing - Conditions - Regulation (EC) No 2245/2002 - Article 4(1)(e) and Article 10(1) and (2)))
      (2018/C 301/09)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Appellant: Mast-Jägermeister SE (represented by: C. Drzymalla, Rechtsanwalt)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: S. Hanne, acting as Agent)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the appeal;

                  2.

                  Orders Mast-Jägermeister SE to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 300, 11.9.2017.


title: Case T-757/17: Order of the General Court of 26 June 2018 — Kerstens v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Disciplinary proceedings — Enforcement of a judgment delivered by the General Court on appeal — Withdrawal of the decision imposing a reprimand — Reopening of the disciplinary proceedings which led to the cancelled sanction — Claim for annulment — Act not adversely affecting an official — Claim for damages — Failure to follow the pre-litigation procedure — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               27.8.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/36

      Order of the General Court of 26 June 2018 — Kerstens v Commission
      (Case T-757/17) (1)

      ((Civil service - Officials - Disciplinary proceedings - Enforcement of a judgment delivered by the General Court on appeal - Withdrawal of the decision imposing a reprimand - Reopening of the disciplinary proceedings which led to the cancelled sanction - Claim for annulment - Act not adversely affecting an official - Claim for damages - Failure to follow the pre-litigation procedure - Manifest inadmissibility))
      (2018/C 301/47)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Petrus Kerstens (Overijse, Belgium) (represented by: C. Mourato, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Mongin and R. Striani, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking (i) annulment of two Commission memoranda of 27 March and 6 April 2017 and (ii) compensation for the non-material damage which the applicant claims to have suffered as a result of the outcome and duration of the disciplinary proceedings CMS 15/017 and CMS 12/063.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

                  2.

                  Mr Petrus Kerstens is ordered to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 32, 29.1.2018.