title: Case C-264/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 1 February 2018 — Deutsche Bahn AG, Schenker AG, Schenker China Ltd, Schenker International (H.K.) Ltd v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Article 101 TFEU — Price fixing — International air freight forwarding services — Pricing agreement affecting the final price of the services)

text:
               26.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/4

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 1 February 2018 — Deutsche Bahn AG, Schenker AG, Schenker China Ltd, Schenker International (H.K.) Ltd v European Commission
   (Case C-264/16 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Article 101 TFEU - Price fixing - International air freight forwarding services - Pricing agreement affecting the final price of the services))
   (2018/C 112/05)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Deutsche Bahn AG, Schenker AG, Schenker China Ltd, Schenker International (H.K.) Ltd (represented by: F. Montag and M. Eisenbarth, Rechtsanwälte, and F. Hoseinian, advokat)

      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 Deutsche Bahn AG, Schenker AG, Schenker China Ltd and Schenker International (H.K.) Ltd to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 243, 4.7.2016.


title: Case T-59/18: Action brought on 5 February 2018 — Endoceutics v EUIPO — Merck (FEMIVIA)

text:
               26.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/42

         Action brought on 5 February 2018 — Endoceutics v EUIPO — Merck (FEMIVIA)
   (Case T-59/18)
   (2018/C 112/53)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Endoceutics, Inc. (Quebec, Quebec, Canada) (represented by: M. Wahlin, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Merck KGaA (Darmstadt, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘FEMIVIA’ — Application for registration No 13 148 986

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 November 2017 in Case R 280/2017-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the Applicant’s costs both at EUIPO and at the General Court.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case C-690/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 8 December 2017 — ÖKO-Test Verlag GmbH v Dr. Rudolf Liebe Nachf. GmbH & Co.KG

text:
               26.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/13

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 8 December 2017 — ÖKO-Test Verlag GmbH v Dr. Rudolf Liebe Nachf. GmbH & Co.KG
   (Case C-690/17)
   (2018/C 112/17)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: ÖKO-Test Verlag GmbH

      Defendant: Dr. Rudolf Liebe Nachf. GmbH & Co.KG

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is an individual trade mark used in such a way as to infringe rights for the purposes of point (b) of the second sentence of Article 9(1) of the EC Trade Mark Regulation (1)/EU Trade Mark Regulation (2) or point (a) of the second sentence of Article 5(1) of the Trade Mark Directive (3) in the case where

                           —

                           the individual trade mark is affixed to a product in respect of which the individual trade mark is not protected;

                           —

                           the affixing of the individual trade mark by a third party is perceived by the public as a ‘test seal’, which is to say that, although the product has been manufactured and placed on the market by a third party not acting under the control of the trade mark proprietor, the trade mark proprietor has tested some of the characteristics of that product and, on that basis, given it a particular rating shown on the test seal; and

                           —

                           the individual trade mark is registered for, inter alia, ‘consumer information and consultancy with regard to the selection of goods and services, in particular using test and investigation results and by means of quality judgments’?

               2.

               Should the Court of Justice answer Question 1 in the negative:
               Is an individual trade mark used in such a way as to infringe rights for the purposes of point (c) of the second sentence of Article 9(1) of the EC Trade Mark Regulation and Article 5(2) of the Trade Mark Directive in the case where

                           —

                           the individual trade mark has a reputation only as a test seal as described in Question 1; and

                           —

                           the individual trade mark is used as a test seal by the third party?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).

      (2)  Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark (OJ 2017 L 154, p. 1).

      (3)  Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 2008 L 299, p. 25).


title: Case C-25/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Okrazhen sad Blagoevgrad (Bulgaria) lodged on 16 January 2018 — Bryan Andrew Ker v Pavlo Postnov, Natalia Postnova

text:
               26.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/21

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Okrazhen sad Blagoevgrad (Bulgaria) lodged on 16 January 2018 — Bryan Andrew Ker v Pavlo Postnov, Natalia Postnova
   (Case C-25/18)
   (2018/C 112/28)
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Okrazhen sad Blagoevgrad

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Bryan Andrew Ker

      Respondents: Pavlo Postnov, Natalia Postnova

      Questions referred

               1.

               Do the decisions of unincorporated associations created by operation of law due to the special ownership of a right, which are taken by a majority of their members but which bind all of them, including those who did not cast a vote, form the basis of a ‘contractual obligation’ for the purposes of determining international jurisdiction pursuant to Article 7(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012? (1)

               2.

               If the first question is answered in the negative: Are the rules on determining the applicable law for contractual relationships under Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) applicable to such decisions?

               3.

               If the first and the second questions are answered in the negative: Are the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 (3) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II) applicable to such decisions, and which of the non-contractual bases of liability referred to in that regulation is relevant here?

               4.

               If the first or second question is answered in the affirmative: Should the decisions of unincorporated associations regarding expenditure for building maintenance be regarded as constituting a ‘contract for the provision of services’ within the meaning of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) or as a contract relating to a ‘right in rem’ or a ‘tenancy’ within the meaning of Article 4(1)(c) of that regulation?

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

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) (OJ 2008 L 177, p. 6).

      (3)  Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II) (OJ 2007 L 199, p. 40).


title: Case C-691/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 11 December 2017 — PORR Építési Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

text:
               26.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/13

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 11 December 2017 — PORR Építési Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága
   (Case C-691/17)
   (2018/C 112/18)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: PORR Építési Kft.

      Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

      Questions referred

               (1)

               Must the provisions of Directive 2006/112/EC, (1) in particular the principles of proportionality, fiscal neutrality and effectiveness, be interpreted as precluding a practice whereby, in circumstances not involving tax fraud, the national tax authorities, when calculating the tax, refuse the right to deduct that may be exercised on the basis of a VAT invoice issued in accordance with the ordinary taxation regime, because they consider that the invoice for the transaction ought to have been issued in accordance with the reverse charge procedure, and fail, before refusing the right to deduct, to examine

                           —

                           whether the issuer of the invoice can reimburse the recipient of the invoice the amount of VAT paid in error, or

                           —

                           whether the issuer of the invoice may lawfully (within the national legal framework) correct and regularise that invoice, and in this way obtain from the tax authorities reimbursement of the tax paid by him in error?

               (2)

               Must the provisions of Directive 2006/112/EC, in particular the provisions of proportionality, fiscal neutrality and effectiveness, be interpreted as precluding a practice whereby the national tax authorities, when calculating the tax, refuses the right to deduct that may be exercised on the basis of a VAT invoice issued in accordance with the ordinary taxation regime, because they consider that the invoice for the transaction ought to have been issued in accordance with the reverse charge procedure, and whereby those authorities, when charging the tax, do not order the recipient of the invoice to be reimbursed the tax paid in error, even though the issuer of the invoice has paid the amount of the VAT in those invoices to the revenue authorities?

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


title: Case T-67/18: Action brought on 5 February 2018 — Probelte v Commission

text:
               26.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/42

         Action brought on 5 February 2018 — Probelte v Commission
   (Case T-67/18)
   (2018/C 112/54)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Probelte, SA (Murcia, Spain) (represented by: C. Mereu and S. Saez Moreno, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the application admissible and well-founded;

               —

               annul Commission’s Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2065 of 13 November 2017 confirming the conditions of approval of the active substance 8-hydroxyquinoline, as set out in Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 and modifying Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/408 as regards the inclusion of the active substance 8-hydroxyquinoline in the list of candidates for substitution (1) (the ‘contested decision’); and

               —

               order the defendant to pay all the costs and expenses of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant contends that the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment and infringed the applicant’s rights of defence and legitimate expectations when it adopted the contested decision rejecting the applicant's request to amend the conditions for the approval of 8-hydroxyquinoline and included that substance in the list of candidates for substitution.
   Specifically, the applicant seeks the annulment of the contested decision on the following grounds:

               1.

               The rejection of the applicant's request to amend the conditions for the approval of 8-hydroxyquinoline under Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 (2).

                           —

                           Rights of defence: the defendant failed to peer review the new data which the applicant was explicitly allowed to submit in the context of the procedure for the amendment of 8-hydroxyquinoline under Regulation 1107/2009 (3). In doing so, the defendant deprived the applicant of its right to have its views presented properly and effectively. Likewise, the defendant included 8-hydroxyquinoline in the list of substances candidates for substitution without due consideration of the applicant's new test data.

                           —

                           Legitimate Expectation: the defendant failed to peer review the new data which the applicant was explicitly allowed to submit in the context of the procedure for the amendment of 8-hydroxyquinoline under Regulation 1107/2009, although it explicitly informed the applicant that this would be the case. In doing so, the defendant infringed the applicant's legitimate expectation that its new data would be peer reviewed by all Member States.

                           —

                           Manifest error of assessment: It was clear from the scientific point of view that there was a deficiency of data, and hence that new data as submitted by the applicant would assist in plugging the classification gap. The defendant committed a manifest error of assessment inasmuch as it failed to consider all current scientific and technical knowledge on the substance 8-hydroxyqunioline.

               2.

               The modification of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/408 (4) as regards the inclusion of the substance in the list of candidates for substitution.

                           —

                           Right of defence/ legitimate expectations/manifest error: Failure to follow and apply the requirements of candidate listing as per point 4 of the Annex II of Regulation 1107/2009: the defendant failed to conduct an exposure assessment in order to establish whether the exception of Point 4 of Annex II could apply to the Substance. In doing so, it infringed the applicable provisions of Regulation 1107/2009 as well as the applicant's right of defence/legitimate expectation. In turn, the defendant also committed a manifest error of assessment.

      (1)  OJ 2017, L 295, p. 40

      (2)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 of 25 May 2011 implementing Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the list of approved active substances (OJ 2011, L 153, p. 1)

      (3)  Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (OJ 2009, L 309, p. 1)

      (4)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/408 of 11 March 2015 on implementing Article 80(7) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and establishing a list of candidates for substitution (OJ 2015, L 67, p. 18)


title: Case C-271/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 1 February 2018 — Panalpina World Transport (Holding) Ltd, Panalpina Management AG, Panalpina China 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 112/4

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 1 February 2018 — Panalpina World Transport (Holding) Ltd, Panalpina Management AG, Panalpina China Ltd v European Commission
   (Case C-271/16 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 112/06)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Panalpina World Transport (Holding) Ltd, Panalpina Management AG, Panalpina China Ltd (represented by: S. Mobley, A. Stratakis and A. Gamble, Solicitors)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka, G. Meessen and P.J.O. Van Nuffel, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Panalpina World Transport (Holding) Ltd, Panalpina Management AG and Panalpina China Ltd to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 243, 4.7.2016.


title: Case T-68/18: Action brought on 7 February 2018 — Fränkischer Weinbauverband v EUIPO (Shape of a bottle)

text:
               26.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/44

         Action brought on 7 February 2018 — Fränkischer Weinbauverband v EUIPO (Shape of a bottle)
   (Case T-68/18)
   (2018/C 112/55)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Fränkischer Weinbauverband eV. (Würzburg, Germany) (represented by: L. Petri and M. Gilch, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: Tridimensional mark (Shape of a bottle) — Application for registration No 15 431 281

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 December 2017 in Case R 413/2017-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case C-33/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 18 January 2018 — V v Institut national d'assurances sociales pour travailleurs indépendants, Securex Integrity ASBL

text:
               26.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/22

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 18 January 2018 — V v Institut national d'assurances sociales pour travailleurs indépendants, Securex Integrity ASBL
   (Case C-33/18)
   (2018/C 112/29)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour du travail de Liège

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: V

      Defendants: Institut national d'assurances sociales pour travailleurs indépendants, Securex Integrity ASBL

      Questions referred

               (1)

               Is Article 87(8) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a person who, before 1 May 2010, began to pursue an activity as an employed person in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and an activity as a self-employed person in Belgium must, in order to be subject to the legislation applicable pursuant to Regulation 883/2004, submit an explicit request to that effect, even if he was subject to no obligation to pay contributions in Belgium before 1 May 2010 and was made subject to the Belgian legislation on the social security scheme for self-employed persons only retroactively, following the expiry of the three-month period starting on 1 May 2010?

               (2)

               If the first question is answered in the affirmative: does the request referred to in Article 87(8) of Regulation 883/2004 and submitted in the circumstances described above entail the application of the legislation of the competent State pursuant to Regulation 883/2004 with retroactive effect from 1 May 2010?

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1.


title: Case C-697/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 11 December 2017 — Telecom Italia SpA v Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico and Infrastrutture e telecomunicazioni per l’Italia SpA (Infratel Italia SpA)

text:
               26.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/14

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 11 December 2017 — Telecom Italia SpA v Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico and Infrastrutture e telecomunicazioni per l’Italia SpA (Infratel Italia SpA)
   (Case C-697/17)
   (2018/C 112/19)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Telecom Italia SpA

      Respondents: Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico and Infrastrutture e telecomunicazioni per l’Italia SpA (Infratel Italia SpA)

      Question referred

   Must the first sentence of Article 28(2) of Directive 2014/24/EU (1) be interpreted as requiring pre-qualified operators and those who submit tenders in the context of a restricted procedure to be completely legally and economically identical and, in particular, must that provision be interpreted as precluding the conclusion of an agreement between the holding companies which control two pre-qualified operators at some point between pre-qualification and the submission of tenders, where: (a) that agreement has as its purpose and effect (inter alia) the completion of a merger by the absorption of one of those pre-qualified undertakings into the other (a transaction which, however, is authorised by the European Commission); (b) the effects of that merger were fully realised after the submission of a tender by the absorbing undertaking (for which reason, at the time the tender was submitted, its composition had not changed from that which existed at the time of pre-qualification); (c) the undertaking then absorbed (whose composition had not changed at the time of the deadline for submitting tenders) has however stated that it is not taking part in the restricted procedure, probably in implementation of the contractual schedule established by the agreement drawn up between the holding companies?

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


title: Case T-69/18: Action brought on 5 February 2018 — Verband Deutscher Alten- und Behindertenhilfe and CarePool Hannover v Commission

text:
               26.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/44

         Action brought on 5 February 2018 — Verband Deutscher Alten- und Behindertenhilfe and CarePool Hannover v Commission
   (Case T-69/18)
   (2018/C 112/56)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: Verband Deutscher Alten- und Behindertenhilfe, Landesverband Niedersachsen/Bremen und Hamburg/Schleswig-Holstein eV (Hanover, Germany) and CarePool Hannover GmbH (Hanover) (represented by: T. Unger, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Decision C(2017) 7686 final of 23 November 2017, with regard to State aid SA.42268 (2017/E) — Deutschland Staatliche Beihilfe zur Förderung wohlfahrtspflegerischer Aufgaben (Germany State aid for the promotion of social welfare projects) and SA.42877 (2017/E) — Deutschland CarePool Hannover GmbH, and

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging an infringement of procedural rights
               The infringement of procedural requirements within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 263 TFEU follows from the fact that the defendant decided, despite serious difficulties with the assessment of the factual and legal situation, not to initiate the formal investigation procedure. In particular, the length, the quality of the defendant’s reasoning and its conduct during the contested State aid procedure support the need to initiate the formal investigation procedure in order to address the serious difficulties of assessing the issue.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the obligation to state reasons in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU
               A further infringement of the procedural requirements results from the fact that the contested decision is insufficiently reasoned and therefore is not compatible with the requirements of the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 107f TFEU
               Further, there is an infringement of Article 107f TFEU, since the defendant mistakenly assumes that there is an existing measure. The contested subsidies are new measures, which satisfy the conditions for State aid.


title: Case T-759/16: Order of the General Court of 23 January 2018 — Campailla v European Union (Action for damages — Law governing the institutions — Liability of the European Union — Decisions delivered by the General Court and by the Court of Justice — Action dismissed by the General Court as inadmissible — Appeal dismissed as inadmissible on the ground of lack of representation — Action manifestly inadmissible)

text:
               26.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/31

         Order of the General Court of 23 January 2018 — Campailla v European Union
   (Case T-759/16) (1)

   ((Action for damages - Law governing the institutions - Liability of the European Union - Decisions delivered by the General Court and by the Court of Justice - Action dismissed by the General Court as inadmissible - Appeal dismissed as inadmissible on the ground of lack of representation - Action manifestly inadmissible))
   (2018/C 112/40)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Massimo Campailla (Holtz, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Rollinger, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union, represented by the Court of Justice of the European Union (represented by: initially J. Inghelram and L. Tonini Alabiso, and subsequently J. Inghelram and V. Hanley-Emilsson, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the order of 6 October 2011, Campailla v Commission (C-265/11 P, not published, EU:C:2011:644).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Massimo Campailla shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union, represented by the Court of Justice of the European Union.

      (1)  OJ C 78, 13.3.17.


title: Case C-43/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 24 January 2018 — Compagnie d’entreprises CFE SA v Région de Bruxelles-Capitale

text:
               26.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/24

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 24 January 2018 — Compagnie d’entreprises CFE SA v Région de Bruxelles-Capitale
   (Case C-43/18)
   (2018/C 112/31)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Compagnie d’entreprises CFE SA

      Defendant: Région de Bruxelles-Capitale

      Questions referred

   Does an order by which a Member State body designates a special area of conservation, under Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, (1) and which contains conservation objectives and general preventive measures having regulatory force, constitute a plan or programme within the meaning of Directive 2001/42/EC on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment? (2)

   More particularly, does such an order fall within Article 3(4), as a plan or programme which sets the framework for future development consent of projects, with the result that the Member States must determine whether it is likely to have significant effects on the environment, in compliance with Article 3(5)?
   Must Article 3(2)(b) of Directive 2001/42/EC on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment be interpreted as meaning that the designation order in question is exempt from the application of Article 3(4) of that directive?

      (1)  OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7.

      (2)  OJ 2001 L 197, p. 30.


title: Case C-625/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 3 November 2017 — Vorarlberger Landes- und Hypothekenbank AG

text:
               26.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/5

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 3 November 2017 — Vorarlberger Landes- und Hypothekenbank AG
   (Case C-625/17)
   (2018/C 112/08)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Vorarlberger Landes- und Hypothekenbank AG

      Defendant: Finanzamt Feldkirch

      Question referred

   Is legislation which imposes a charge on the basis of the balance sheet total of credit institutions contrary to the freedom to provide services under Article 56 et seq. TFEU and/or to the free movement of capital and payments under Article 63 TFEU if, for the purposes of the charge, banking transactions with clients in other Member States are taken into account for a credit institution with its seat in Austria whereas the same does not apply to a credit institution with its seat in Austria which enters into such transactions as the parent company of a group of credit institutions through a credit institution belonging to the group with its seat in another Member State, the balance sheet of which must, since it belongs to a group of companies, be consolidated with that of the credit institution acting as a parent company, because the charge is levied on the basis of the unconsolidated (that is to say, not included in a group financial statement) balance sheet total?


title: Case C-702/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 14 December 2017 — Unareti SpA v Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico and Others

text:
               26.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/15

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 14 December 2017 — Unareti SpA v Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico and Others
   (Case C-702/17)
   (2018/C 112/20)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Unareti SpA

      Respondents: Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri — Dipartimento per gli Affari Regionali, Autorità Garante per l’Energia Elettrica il Gas e il Sistema Idrico — Sede di Milano, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri — Conferenza Stato Regioni ed Unificata, Ministero per gli affari regionali, Dipartimento per gli affari regionali e le autonomie, Conferenza Unificata Stato Regioni e Enti Locali

      Questions referred

   In particular, the Court is asked to establish whether those principles and laws preclude national legislation, as described above, that provides for retrospective application of criteria for determining the amount of the reimbursements payable to former concession holders, thus affecting previous contractual relationships, or whether the application of those criteria can be justified, including in view of the proportionality principle, by the requirement of protecting other public interests of European importance, relating to the necessity of improving protection for competition within the market in question and of giving greater protection to service users, who could indirectly bear the cost of an increase in the sums payable to former concession holders.


title: Case T-265/17: Order of the General Court of 1 February 2018 — ExpressVPN v EUIPO (EXPRESSVPN) (EU trade mark — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark EXPRESSVPN — Absolute ground for refusal — Application for alteration — Single head of claim — Inadmissibility)

text:
               26.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/32

         Order of the General Court of 1 February 2018 — ExpressVPN v EUIPO (EXPRESSVPN)
   (Case T-265/17) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark EXPRESSVPN - Absolute ground for refusal - Application for alteration - Single head of claim - Inadmissibility))
   (2018/C 112/41)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: ExpressVPN Ltd (Glen Vine, Isle of Man) (represented by: A. Muir Wood, Barrister)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 February 2017 (Case R 1352/2016-5), concerning the international registration designating the European Union No 1 265 562 of the figurative mark EXPRESSVPN.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               ExpressVPN Ltd is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 202, 26.6.2017.


title: Case C-51/18: Action brought on 29 January 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Austria

text:
               26.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/25

         Action brought on 29 January 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Austria
   (Case C-51/18)
   (2018/C 112/32)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: N. Gossement and B.-R. Killmann, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Austria

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by imposing value added tax on the royalty paid to an author of an original work of art on the basis of the resale right, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of the VAT Directive;

               2.

               order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following arguments:
   Austria levies value added tax on the royalties paid to the author of an original artistic work upon its resale, within the framework of the resale right which was introduced in Austria in the transposition of Directive 2001/84/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2001 on the resale right for the benefit of the author of an original work of art. In doing so, Austria has infringed Article 2 of the VAT Directive.
   In the context of the resale right, there is no relationship based on an exchange of services between the author and the party which is liable to pay. The share of proceeds to be returned to the author on the basis of the resale right results from the law and is created in such a way that the seller, or whoever else takes part in the resale, is required to pay a royalty to the author, without the author having to perform any sort of service in that respect. The author’s service has already been provided in that respect before the resale, in that the author brought his original work onto the market in the first place.
   The royalty from the resale right which is to be paid to the author does therefore not represent consideration for any of the services performed by the author, but rather the royalty depends entirely on the price paid in the resale, the amount of which cannot be influenced by the author. The author is entitled to the royalty without having to, or even being able to, undertake any service, either by action or by inaction. Consequently, the royalty from the resale right cannot be regarded as consideration for a supply of goods or services within the meaning of Article 2 of the VAT Directive.

      (1)  Directive 2001/84/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2001 on the resale right for the benefit of the author of an original work of art (OJ 2001 L 272, p. 32).


title: Case T-14/18: Action brought on 16 January 2018 — Hellenic Republic v Commission

text:
               26.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/32

         Action brought on 16 January 2018 — Hellenic Republic v Commission
   (Case T-14/18)
   (2018/C 112/42)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: G. Kanellopoulos, E. Leftheriotou and Ε. Chroni, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               Annul the contested decision in so far as it excludes from European Union financing expenditure incurred by the Hellenic Republic with respect to area aid for the year 2014 which corresponds to 5 % of the total costs incurred with respect to pasture-related aid, gross amount EUR 15 583 893,42 (net amount EUR 12 482 555,68)·

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the legal costs of the Hellenic Republic.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               The first plea in law is based on the claim that as regards the imposition of the 5 % financial correction at issue with respect to pasture-related area aid, no reasons were stated, there was an error of fact, and the principle of proportionality was infringed.

               2.

               The second plea in law is based on a claimed infringement of Article 31(2) and (3) of Council Regulation (ΕC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005, and of Article 52(2) and (3) of Regulation (ΕU) No 1306/2013 of 17 December 2013, read together with Articles 12(1) to (6) and 8 of Commission Delegated Regulation (ΕU) No 907/2014 of 6 August 2014, and also an infringement of the Commission Guidelines in documents VI/5330797 and C(2015)3675 final/8-6-2015. It is further claimed that it is not permissible to accumulate two corrections for the same reason and that the principle of proportionality was infringed.


title: Case C-709/17 P: Appeal brought on 18 December 2017 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 10 October 2017 in Case T-435/15: Kolachi Raj Industrial (Private) Ltd v European Commission

text:
               26.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/16

         Appeal brought on 18 December 2017 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 10 October 2017 in Case T-435/15: Kolachi Raj Industrial (Private) Ltd v European Commission
   (Case C-709/17 P)
   (2018/C 112/21)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland, A. Demeneix, M. França, Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Kolachi Raj Industrial (Private) Ltd, European Bicycle Manufacturers Association

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2017 in Case T-435/15 Kolachi Raj Industrial (Private) Ltd v Commission, reject the application at first instance, and order the applicant to pay the costs;
               or, alternatively,

               —

               refer back the case to the General Court for reconsideration; reserve the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appeal brought by the Commission concerns the judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2017 in Case T-435/15. In that judgment, the General Court annulled, to the extent that it concerns Kolachi Raj, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/776 (1) of 18 May 2015 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Council Regulation (EU) No 502/2013 on imports of bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of bicycles consigned from Cambodia, Pakistan and the Philippines, whether declared as originating in Cambodia, Pakistan and the Philippines or not.
   The Commission relies, in support of its appeal, on one single ground of appeal.
   The Commission considers that the General Court misinterpreted Article 1 3(2)(b) of the basic anti-dumping regulation. First, in the contested judgment, the General Court incorrectly imported rules of origin in the application of Article 13 of the Basic Regulation and in the interpretation of the term ‘from’ used in its Article 13(2)(b). Second, the General Court incorrectly restricted the type of evidence that the Commission may use to demonstrate that parts come ‘from’ the country subject to anti-dumping measures. The Commission considers that the interpretation adopted by the General Court is not in line with the text, the context and the purpose of Article 13 of the Basic Regulation, nor with the case-law of the Court of Justice on anti-circumvention measures.

      (1)  OJ 2015, L 122, p. 4.


title: Case T-71/18: Action brought on 8 February 2018 — Italy v Commission

text:
               26.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/45

         Action brought on 8 February 2018 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-71/18)
   (2018/C 112/58)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

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

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul Notice of Open Competition EPSO/AD/339/17 — Administrators (AD 7) in the following fields: 1. Financial economics, 2. Macroeconomics, published in OJ C 386 A of 16 November 2017;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 263 TFEU, 264 TFEU and 266 TFEU, in that the Commission failed to comply with the judgment of the Court in Case C-566/10 P, or with the judgment of the General Court in Joined Cases T-124/13 and T-191/13, in which it was held that open competition notices which restrict the candidates’ choice of second language to only English, French and German are unlawful.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 342 TFEU and of Articles 1 and 6 of Regulation (EEC) No 1 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1952-1958, p. 59).

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 12 EC, now Article 18 TFEU, of Article 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, of Article 6(3) TEU and Article 1(2) and (3) of Annex III to the Staff Regulations, of Articles 1 and 6 of Regulation No 1 and of Articles 1d(1) and (6), 27(2) and 28(f) of the Staff Regulations, inasmuch as those provisions prohibit the imposition on European citizens and officials of the European institutions of language restrictions which are not provided for in a general and objective manner by the internal rules of the institutions contemplated in Article 6 of Regulation No 1 and not yet adopted, and prohibit the introduction of such limitations unless they are justified by a specific substantiated service-related interest.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 6(3) TEU, in so far as it establishes the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations as a fundamental right resulting from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging misuse of powers and infringement of the substantive rules concerning the nature and purpose of competition notices, in that, by restricting to three, in a pre-emptive and general manner, the number of languages eligible for use as a second language, the Commission has effectively advanced the assessment of candidates’ linguistic abilities — an assessment which ought to be carried out in the course of the competition itself — to the notice and eligibility stages. Thus, a candidate’s knowledge of languages is given priority vis-à-vis her or his professional knowledge.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 18 TFEU and the fourth paragraph of Article 24 TFEU, of Article 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, of Article 2 of Regulation No 1 and of Article 1d(1) and (6) of the Staff Regulations in that, by providing that applications must be sent in English, French or German, and that EPSO will send communications concerning the organisation of the competition to the candidates in the same language, the right of European citizens to communicate with the institutions in their own language has been infringed and individuals who do not have an in-depth knowledge of one of those languages suffer additional discrimination.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 1 and 6 of Regulation No 1, of Articles 1d(1) and (6) and Article 28(f) of the Staff Regulations, of Article 1(1)(f) of Annex III to the Staff Regulations, and of the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU (failure to state reasons), as well as infringement of the principle of proportionality and distortion of the facts.

         The applicant claims in this regard that the statement of reasons put forward by the Commission distorts the facts because it does not follow that the three languages in question are the most frequently used for the translation of documents within the institutions, and that that statement of reasons is disproportionate with regard to the restriction of a fundamental right such as the right not to suffer discrimination on linguistic grounds. In any event, there are less restrictive mechanisms for ensuring rapid translation within the institutions.


title: Case T-19/18: Action brought on 19 January 2018 — Republic of Lithuania v European Commission

text:
               26.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/33

         Action brought on 19 January 2018 — Republic of Lithuania v European Commission
   (Case T-19/18)
   (2018/C 112/43)
   Language of the case: Lithuanian

      Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Lithuania (represented by: D. Kriaučiūnas, R. Krasuckaitė, R. Dzikovič, G. Taluntytė, V. Vasiliauskienė, M. Palionis and A. Dapkuvienė)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               1.

               annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/2014 of 8 November 2017 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in so far as it provides for the imposition on Lithuania of a financial correction of EUR 9 745 705,88 regarding expenditure connected with funding from the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development;

               2.

               annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/2014 of 8 November 2017 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in so far as it provides for the imposition on Lithuania of a financial correction of EUR 546 351,91 regarding expenditure connected with funding from the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development;

               3.

               order the European 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.

               I.

               By imposing a correction of EUR 9 745 705,88 for a deficiency in key controls, the European Commission (‘the Commission’) infringed Article 52(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 in so far as, in deciding on the gravity of the non-conformity, on the nature of the infringements and on the financial damage caused to the European Union and:

                           1.

                           relying on an incorrect interpretation of Article 24(1) and (2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 65/2011, it wrongly found that the assessments of applicants’ eligibility carried out in Lithuania are insufficient because:

                                       1.1

                                       the checks carried out by Lithuanian authorities concerning the relatedness of an undertaking and a connected undertaking or a partner undertaking abroad were not thorough for the purpose of confirming the applicants’ status as small or medium-sized undertakings;

                                       1.2

                                       in Lithuania the monitoring of projects recognised as risky on account of suspected artificial conditions is ineffective;

                           2.

                           relying on an incorrect interpretation of Article 24(2)(d) of Regulation (EU) No 65/2011, it wrongly found that the quality of the checks carried out in Lithuania of the reasonableness of the costs was insufficient;

                           3.

                           relying on an incorrect interpretation of Article 26(1)(d) and (2) of Regulation (EU) No 65/2011, it wrongly found that the system of on-the-spot checks applied in Lithuania is insufficient;

                           4.

                           relying on an incorrect interpretation of Article 24(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 65/2011, it wrongly found that goods acquired in one of the projects checked were essentially used for purposes other than those of the project.

               II.

               By imposing a correction of EUR 546 351,91 for a deficiency in key and ancillary controls, the Commission infringed Article 52(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 in so far as, in deciding on the gravity of the non-conformity, on the nature of the infringements and on the financial damage caused to the European Union:

                           1.

                           it failed to take account of the calculations carried out by the competent authorities of the Republic of Lithuania concerning the financial damage caused to the European Union that is connected with divergences of the penalty system which relate to infringements as to animal identification and registration and are not provided for in the relevant measures of EU law, in respect of the 2014 claim year;

                           2.

                           it failed to take account of the calculations carried out by the competent authorities of the Republic of Lithuania concerning the financial damage caused to the European Union that is connected with an overly lenient assessment of failure to observe the requirements for the identification and registration of animals, in respect of the 2014 claim year;

                           3.

                           also relying on an incorrect interpretation of Article 51(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009, it wrongly found that in Lithuania risk analysis did not comply with that regulation because risk factors connected with the animals were not included in it;

                           4.

                           also relying on an incorrect interpretation of Article 84 of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009, it wrongly found that the monitoring carried out in Lithuania of the results of controls did not comply with that regulation, because statistics were supplied without full observance of the Commission’s templates.


title: Case C-645/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 20 November 2017 — Emirates Airlines — Direktion für Deutschland v Aylin Wüst, Peter Wüst

text:
               26.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/7

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 20 November 2017 — Emirates Airlines — Direktion für Deutschland v Aylin Wüst, Peter Wüst
   (Case C-645/17)
   (2018/C 112/10)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landgericht Frankfurt am Main

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Emirates Airlines — Direktion für Deutschland

      Defendants: Aylin Wüst, Peter Wüst

      Questions referred

               1.

               Should Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) of 11 February 2004 be interpreted as meaning that the temporary closure of an airport due to an accident involving an aircraft on landing constitutes an extraordinary circumstance?

               2.

               If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative:
               Should Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of 11 February 2004 be interpreted as meaning that the temporary closure of an airport constitutes an extraordinary circumstance even if the aircraft involved in the accident belonged to the fleet of the air carrier which is relying on the occurrence of an extraordinary circumstance in relation to a flight which was delayed due to the closure of the airport?

               3.

               If the answer to the second question is in the affirmative:
               Should Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of 11 February 2004 be interpreted as meaning that even in the case that the aircraft [Or. 3] involved in the accident belonged to the fleet of an air carrier which is relying on the occurrence of an extraordinary circumstance in relation to a flight which was delayed due to the closure of the airport, the delay in arrival of longer than three hours was ‘caused’ by that extraordinary circumstance?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).


title: Case C-61/18: Action brought on 31 January 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria

text:
               26.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/25

         Action brought on 31 January 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria
   (Case C-61/18)
   (2018/C 112/33)
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. von Rintelen, K. Walkerová, G. Koleva, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Bulgaria

      Form of order sought

   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt by 18 September 2016 all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2014/89/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning (OJ L 257, 28.8.2014, р. 135-145) or in any event by not informing the Commission of such measures, the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to fulfil its obligations in accordance with Article 15(1) of that directive;

               —

               order the Republic of Bulgaria, in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU to pay a periodic penalty in the amount of EUR 14 089,60 per day, calculated from the date of delivery of the judgment establishing the existence of the Republic of Bulgaria’s failure to fulfil its obligations.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               In accordance with Article 15(1) of Directive 2014/89/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning, Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the directive by 18 September 2016. They shall immediately inform the Commission thereof. In view of the Republic of Bulgaria’s failure to inform it of the national measures transposing the directive, the Commission has decided to bring an action before the Court.

               2.

               In its application, the Commission proposes that the Republic of Bulgaria be ordered to pay a periodic penalty in the amount of EUR 14 089,60 per day. The amount of the periodic penalty payment is calculated taking into account the severity and duration of the infringement, as well as the deterrent effect and the ability of that Member State to pay.


title: Case T-74/18: Action brought on 6 February 2018 — Visi/one v EUIPO — EasyFix (Information displays for vehicles)

text:
               26.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/47

         Action brought on 6 February 2018 — Visi/one v EUIPO — EasyFix (Information displays for vehicles)
   (Case T-74/18)
   (2018/C 112/59)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Visi/one GmbH (Remscheid, Germany) (represented by: H. Bourree and M. Bartz, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: EasyFix GmbH (Vienna, Austria)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant

      Design at issue: Community design No 1391114-0001

      Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 December 2017 in Case R 1424/2016-3

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order the intervener to pay the costs, including those incurred in the course of the appeals procedure.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of the second sentence of Article 62 of Regulation No 6/2002;

               —

               Infringement of the first sentence of Article 62 of Regulation No 6/2002;

               —

               Infringement of Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002.


title: Case T-20/18: Action brought on 17 January 2018 — CV v Commission

text:
               26.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/34

         Action brought on 17 January 2018 — CV v Commission
   (Case T-20/18)
   (2018/C 112/44)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: CV (represented by: F. Moyse, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decisions of 15 and 20 March 2017 and of 18 October 2017;

               —

               award the applicant the amount of EUR 1 475 by way of compensation for material damage plus statutory interest at the rate of 2,25 %, to be calculated as from the payment of that amount, or, in the alternative, as from the date on which the complaint was lodged, or, in the further alternative, as from the date on which the application was lodged, and the amount of EUR 1 by way of compensation for non-material damage;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging irregularity of the administrative procedure preceding the adoption of the contested decisions, including before the Medical Committee, by which the application for recognition of the occupational origin of the applicant’s disease was rejected and certain costs and fees of the members of the Medical Committee were imposed on the applicant.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment made by a doctor in that doctor’s reports.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the reasons stated in the contested decisions were insufficient.


title: Case C-712/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Regionale per la Lombardia (Italy) lodged on 20 December 2017 — EN.SA. Srl v Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Regionale Lombardia Ufficio Contenzioso

text:
               26.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/17

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Regionale per la Lombardia (Italy) lodged on 20 December 2017 — EN.SA. Srl v Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Regionale Lombardia Ufficio Contenzioso
   (Case C-712/17)
   (2018/C 112/23)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Commissione Tributaria Regionale per la Lombardia

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: EN.SA. Srl

      Respondent: Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Regionale Lombardia Ufficio Contenzioso

      Question referred

   ‘In the event of transactions found to be non-existent, which did not cause harm to the Treasury and did not confer any tax benefit on the taxpayer, are national rules resulting from the application of Article 19 (Deduction) and 21(7) (Invoicing of transactions) of Decreto de Presidente della Repubblica 633/72 of 16 October 1972 and Article 6(6) of Decreto Legislativo 471 of 18 December 1997 (Breach of obligations relating to documentation, registration and detection of transactions) consistent with the Community principles on VAT laid down by the Court of Justice, when their simultaneous application bring about:

               (a)

               the repeated non-deductibility of tax paid on purchases by the transferee for every transaction at issue which relates to the same person and the same taxable amount;

               (b)

               the application of the tax on, and payment of the tax by, the transferor (and the preclusion of recovery of sums unduly paid) for the corresponding and mirror sale transactions deemed equally non-existent;

               (c)

               the application of a penalty equal to the amount of tax on acquisitions deemed non-deductible?’


title: Case T-26/18: Action brought on 19 January 2018 — France v Commission

text:
               26.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/35

         Action brought on 19 January 2018 — France v Commission
   (Case T-26/18)
   (2018/C 112/45)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: French Republic (represented by: F. Alabrune, D. Colas, A.-L. Desjonquères and S. Horrenberger, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul in part Commission Implementing Decision C(2017) 7263 final of 8 November 2017 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), notified to the French Government on 9 November 2017, in so far as it:

                           —

                           includes a correction of EUR 2 246 700 as a result of taking into account landscape features in the context of alleged non-compliance with good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC), as regards ‘Deficiencies in the LPIS’ for claim years 2013 and 2014;

                           —

                           includes a flat-rate correction covering all the areas which include at least one area described as ‘landes et parcours’ and not only areas described as ‘ineligible areas (“landes et parcours”)’ for claim years 2013 and 2014;

                           —

                           concerns ‘Most Likely Error — FEADER SIGC — 2014-2020’ in the context of audit CEB/2016/047; and

                           —

                           applies a flat-rate correction of 100 % to the Département of Haute-Corse, for claim years 2013 and 2014, in regard to ‘Control system gravely deficient Corse’;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 6(1) of, and Annex III to, Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers.
               According to the applicant, that infringement resulted from the fact that the Commission considered that, first, elements such as rock outcrops, ponds and small woods covered by French legislation do not come within the GAEC and, second, that those provisions require the individual protection of each landscape element and, consequently, that those elements could not be incorporated in the total area of agricultural land.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality. In this regard, the applicant considers that, although the dispute concerns only the areas described as ‘landes et parcours’, the Commission adopted a correction based on all the areas in cases which include such areas, and thus includes the share of those areas which are not areas of that kind, and in any event ignored the calculations sent by the French authorities.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission relied on data which it accepted contrary to Article 6(1) of Regulation No 73/2009 and Annex III thereto, in order to carry out a financial correction of EUR 13 127 243,30 as regards the EAFRD programming period 2014-2020 (‘RDR 3’).

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality and breach of the duty to state reasons as regards ‘Control system gravely deficient Corse’ for claim years 2013 and 2014 in the contested decision, in that the Commission applies a flat-rate correction of 100 % to the Département of Haute-Corse.


title: Case C-649/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 21 November 2017 — Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V. v Amazon EU Sàrl

text:
               26.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/7

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 21 November 2017 — Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V. v Amazon EU Sàrl
   (Case C-649/17)
   (2018/C 112/11)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

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

      Respondent: Amazon EU Sàrl

      Questions referred

   The following questions regarding the interpretation of Article 6(1)(c) of Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights (1) are referred for a preliminary ruling:

               1.

               May Member States enact a provision that — like the provision in Article 246a(1)(1), first sentence, No 2, of the EGBGB (Introductory Law to the Civil Code) — obliges a trader to make his telephone number available to the consumer (not just where available but) always when entering into distance contracts prior to acceptance of the contract?

               2.

               Does the expression ‘gegebenenfalls’ (‘where available’) used in (the German language version of) Article 6(1)(c) of Directive 2011/83/EU mean that a trader must provide information only about the communication methods already actually available in his undertaking, meaning that he is not required to set up a new telephone or fax connection or e-mail account when he decides also to enter into distance contracts in his undertaking?

               3.

               If the answer to Question 2 is yes:
               Does the expression ‘gegebenenfalls’ (‘where available’) used in (the German language version of) Article 6(1)(c) of Directive 2011/83/EU mean that only those communication methods are already available in an undertaking that are actually also used by the trader [Or. 3] to contact consumers when entering into distance contracts, or are those communication methods also available in the undertaking that are used by the trader up to that time exclusively for other purposes, such as communication with other traders or authorities?

               4.

               Is the list of communication methods specified in Article 6(1)(c) of Directive 2011/83/EU, namely, telephone, fax and e-mail, exhaustive, or may the trader also use other communication methods that are not mentioned there, such as internet chats or a telephone callback system, provided that this ensures quick contact and efficient communication?

               5.

               Does the application of the transparency requirement of Article 6(1) of Directive 2011/83/EU, according to which the trader must inform the consumer of the communication methods set out in Article 6(1)(c) of Directive 2011/83/EU in a clear and comprehensible manner, depend on the information being supplied quickly and efficiently?

      (1)  OJ 2011 L 304, p. 64.


title: Case C-76/18: Action brought on 6 February 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Austria

text:
               26.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/26

         Action brought on 6 February 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Austria
   (Case C-76/18)
   (2018/C 112/34)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. von Rintelen, P. Ondrůšek and M. Noll-Ehlers, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Austria

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Directive 2014/25/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on procurement by entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors and repealing Directive 2004/17/EC into national law, or by failing to notify the Commission of those provisions, the defendant has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               impose on the defendant, pursuant to Article 260(3) TFEU, by reason of the infringement of the obligation to notify the transposition measures, a penalty payment in the amount of EUR 42 377 per day;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Member States were required, under Article 106(1) of Directive 2014/25/EU, to adopt the national measures necessary to transpose the obligations under that directive into national law by 18 April 2016 at the latest. Since the Republic of Austria failed to adopt all the required laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose that directive, or failed to give notification of those provisions to the Commission, the Commission decided to refer the matter to the Court of Justice.
   By its application, the Commission asks the Court to impose a penalty payment in the amount of EUR 42 377 per day on the Republic of Austria. The amount of that penalty payment has been calculated taking into account the gravity and duration of the infringement and the deterrent effect based on that Member State’s ability to pay.

      (1)  OJ 2014 L 94, p. 243.


title: Case C-666/17 P: Appeal brought on 27 November 2017 by AlzChem AG against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 7 September 2017 in Case T-451/15: AlzChem AG v Commission

text:
               26.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/8

         Appeal brought on 27 November 2017 by AlzChem AG against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 7 September 2017 in Case T-451/15: AlzChem AG v Commission
   (Case C-666/17 P)
   (2018/C 112/12)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: AlzChem AG (represented by: A. Borsos, avocat, J. A. Guerrero Pérez, abogado)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the application admissible and well founded;

               —

               annul the judgment;

               —

               annul the contested decision; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1)

               First Plea: Error in law and manifest error of assessment regarding the application of a general presumption in relation to the exception for the protection of the purpose of EU investigations

                           —

                           The Commission’s error in law regarding the application of the general presumptions in relation to the application of exception to requests for access to specific and identified pre-existing documents;

                           —

                           The Commission’s error in law regarding the protection of the purpose of ongoing investigations in relation to requests for access to specific and identified pre-existing documents;

                           —

                           The Commission’s error in law and manifest error of assessment regarding the assessment of the overriding public interest of ensuring an effective judicial review (Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights); and

                           —

                           The Commission’s error in law regarding the application of the fundamental right of access to documents (Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights).

               2)

               Second Plea: Failure to state reasons regarding the refusal of access to a non-confidential version of an on-site access to the documents.


title: Case C-77/18: Action brought on 6 February 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Austria

text:
               26.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/27

         Action brought on 6 February 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Austria
   (Case C-77/18)
   (2018/C 112/35)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Noll-Ehlers, P. Ondrůšek and G. von Rintelen, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Austria

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Directive 2014/24/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC, or by failing to notify the Commission of those provisions, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               impose on the Republic of Austria, pursuant to Article 260(3) TFEU, by reason of the infringement of the obligation to notify the transposition measures, a penalty payment in the amount of EUR 42 377 per day;

               —

               order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Member States were required, under Article 90(1) of Directive 2014/24/EU, to adopt the national measures necessary to transpose the obligations under that directive into national law by 18 April 2016 at the latest. Since the Republic of Austria failed to adopt all the required laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose that directive, or failed to give notification of those provisions to the Commission, the Commission decided to refer the matter to the Court of Justice.
   By its application, the Commission requests the Court to impose a penalty payment in the amount of EUR 42 377 per day on the Republic of Austria. The amount of that penalty payment has been calculated taking into account the gravity and duration of the infringement and the deterrent effect based on that Member State’s ability to pay.

      (1)  OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65.


title: Case C-715/17: Action brought on 21 December 2017 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

text:
               26.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/18

         Action brought on 21 December 2017 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-715/17)
   (2018/C 112/24)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Stobiecka-Kuik and G. Wils, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Poland

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to indicate at regular intervals, and at least every three months, the appropriate number of applicants who can be relocated swiftly to its territory starting from 16 March 2016, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(2) of Council Decision (EU) 2015/1523 and under Article 5(2) of Council Decision (EU) 2015/1601, and has consequently failed to fulfil its other relocation obligations as set out in Article 5(4) to (11) of both of the aforementioned Council decisions;

               —

               order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   A provisional emergency relocation scheme was established in two Council decisions adopted in September 2015, namely Council Decision (EU) 2015/1523 (1) and Council Decision (EU) 2015/1601, (2) pursuant to which the Member States undertook to relocate from Italy and Greece persons requiring international protection.
   Those Council decisions place the Member States under an obligation to offer relocation places every three months with a view to ensuring a swift and orderly relocation procedure. Although almost all the other Member States have taken steps to fulfil their obligations in this matter, including relocation, Poland has not carried out any relocation, nor has it proposed any appropriate relocation place since December 2015.
   On 16 June 2017 the Commission initiated a Treaty-infringement procedure against Poland.
   Having considered the response of that Member State to be unsatisfactory, the Commission decided to proceed to the next stage of the Treaty-infringement procedure by sending the Republic of Poland a reasoned opinion on 26 July 2017.
   Having also deemed the response to the reasoned opinion to be unsatisfactory, the European Commission has decided to bring proceedings before the Court of Justice of the European Union against the Republic of Poland in relation to the latter’s non-performance of its legal relocation obligations.

      (1)  Council Decision (EU) 2015/1523 of 14 September 2015 establishing provisional measures in the area of international protection for the benefit of Italy and of Greece (OJ 2015 L 239, p. 146).

      (2)  Council Decision (EU) 2015/1601 of 22 September 2015 establishing provisional measures in the area of international protection for the benefit of Italy and Greece (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 80).


title: Case T-75/18: Action brought on 6 February 2018 — MPM-Quality v EUIPO — Elton Hodinářská (MANUFACTURE PRIM 1949)

text:
               26.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/47

         Action brought on 6 February 2018 — MPM-Quality v EUIPO — Elton Hodinářská (MANUFACTURE PRIM 1949)
   (Case T-75/18)
   (2018/C 112/60)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Czech

      Parties

      Applicant: MPM-Quality v.o.s (Frýdek-Místek, Czech Republic) (represented by: M. Kyjovský, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Elton Hodinářská a.s. (Nové Město nad Metují, Czech Republic)

      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 containing the word elements ‘MANUFACTURE PRIM 1949’ — European Union trade mark No 3 531 662

      Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 December 2017 in Case R 556/2017-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Articles 18 and 58 of Regulation No 1001/2017;

               —

               Infringement of Article 10(3) et seq. and of Article 19(1) of Regulation No 1430/2017.


title: Case T-29/18: Action brought on 19 January 2018 — Planet v Commission

text:
               26.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/36

         Action brought on 19 January 2018 — Planet v Commission
   (Case T-29/18)
   (2018/C 112/46)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Planet AE Anonimi Etairia Parokhis Simvouleftikon Ipiresion (Athens, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the refusal decision of the Commission, whereby the Commission implicitly rejected the applicant’s request for access to the documents relating to the tendering procedure for the EuropeAid/137681/ΙΗ/SER/ROC/4 project; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay all the applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By means of this action, Planet seeks the annulment of the Commission’s implicit decision whereby it denied Planet access to documents, under Regulation No 1049/2001, in connection with the EuropeAid/137681/ΙΗ/SER/ROC/4 tendering procedure.
   Planet maintains that the Commission’s implicit refusal should be annulled, since no reasons have been stated, which is mandatory under Article 296 TFEU in terms of EU law and which constitutes an essential procedural requirement for EU acts.


title: Case T-78/18: Action brought on 9 February 2018 — AB Mauri Italy v EUIPO — Lesaffre et Compagnie (FERMIN)

text:
               26.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/48

         Action brought on 9 February 2018 — AB Mauri Italy v EUIPO — Lesaffre et Compagnie (FERMIN)
   (Case T-78/18)
   (2018/C 112/61)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: AB Mauri Italy SpA (Casteggio, Italy) (represented by: B. Brandreth, Barrister and G. Hussey, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Lesaffre et Compagnie (Paris, France)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark FERMIN — Application for registration No 10 999 613

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 December 2017 in Joined Cases R 2027/2016-4 and R 2254/2016-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               partly annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to bear the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case C-79/18: Action brought on 6 February 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Austria

text:
               26.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/28

         Action brought on 6 February 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Austria
   (Case C-79/18)
   (2018/C 112/36)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. von Rintelen, P. Ondrůšek and M. Noll-Ehlers, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Austria

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Directive 2014/23/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on the award of concession contracts, with the exception of Article 46 and Article 47 in the Länder of Vienna, Styria and Carinthia, or by failing to notify the Commission of those provisions, the defendant has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               impose on the defendant, pursuant to Article 260(3) TFEU, by reason of the infringement of the obligation to notify the transposition measures, a penalty payment in the amount of EUR 52 972 per day;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Member States were required, under Article 51(1) of Directive 2014/23/EU, to adopt the national measures necessary to transpose the obligations under that directive into national law by 18 April 2016 at the latest. Since the Republic of Austria failed to adopt all the required laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose that directive, or failed to give notification of those provisions to the Commission, the Commission decided to refer the matter to the Court of Justice.
   By its application, the Commission requests the Court to impose a penalty payment in the amount of EUR 52 972 per day on the Republic of Austria. The amount of that penalty payment has been calculated taking into account the gravity and duration of the infringement and the deterrent effect based on that Member State’s ability to pay.

      (1)  OJ 2014 L 94, p. 1.


title: Case T-31/18: Action brought on 20 January 2018 — Izuzquiza and Semsrott v Frontex

text:
               26.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/36

         Action brought on 20 January 2018 — Izuzquiza and Semsrott v Frontex
   (Case T-31/18)
   (2018/C 112/47)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Luisa Izuzquiza (Madrid, Spain) and Arne Semsrott (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: S. Hilbrans and R. Callsen, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Border and Coast Guard Agency

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision by Frontex of 10 November 2017 (ref: CGO/LAU/18911 c/2017), refusing the applicants access to the name, flag and type of each vessel deployed by Frontex in the Central Mediterranean under Joint Operation Triton in the period from 1 June 2017 until 30 August 2017, both inclusive;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the applicants, including the costs of any intervening party, even if the action is dismissed.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on six pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that Frontex infringed Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, (1) by failing to carry out an individual examination of each requested document in order to assess whether the exception relied on was applicable.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that Frontex infringed the first indent of Article 4(1)(a) of that regulation, which relates to public security, because the reasons given to justify the application of the exception are in a decisive part incorrect in fact: vessels deployed to the operation cannot be tracked by publicly accessible means.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that Frontex infringed the first indent of Article 4(1)(a) of that regulation, which relates to public security, because the reasons given to justify the application of the exception leave out of consideration the circumstance that the applicants only requested information on vessels deployed in the past.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that Frontex infringed the first indent of Article 4(1)(a) of that regulation, which relates to public a security, because the defendant did not consider — and did not answer this argument put forward by the applicants — that part of the requested information was already published on Twitter for some of the vessels deployed under Joint Operation Triton in 2017 and comparable information for vessels deployed under Joint Operation Triton in 2016 was already published.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that Frontex infringed Article 4(6) of that regulation because even if the — in fact not existing — risk that criminal networks circumvent border surveillance would be presumed true, this could possibly only justify refusing information on the name of the vessels deployed but not on the type and flag.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging that Frontex infringed Article 4(6) of that regulation by not considering to give partial access to the requested information, even though the information on some of the vessels was already published.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).


title: Case T-33/18: Action brought on 23 January 2018 — Pracsis and Conceptexpo Project v Commission and EACEA

text:
               26.3.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/37

         Action brought on 23 January 2018 — Pracsis and Conceptexpo Project v Commission and EACEA
   (Case T-33/18)
   (2018/C 112/48)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Pracsis SPRL (Brussels, Belgium) and Conceptexpo Project (Wavre, Belgium) (represented by: J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

      Defendants: European Commission and Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA)

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the General Court should:

               —

               declare the action admissible and well founded;

               —

               annul the contested decisions, in that they designate Cecoforma as the successful tenderer for the framework contract of the call for tenders EACEA/2017/01, and annul the contract signed between EACEA and Cecoforma;

               —

               order the European Commission and EACEA, jointly and severally, to pay to the applicants the sum of EUR 1 million;

               —

               order the defendants to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment and of the duty of transparency.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to be heard.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging breach of the obligation to state reasons and a manifest error of assessment.


title: Case C-711/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 19 December 2017 — Anke Hartog v British Airways plc

text:
               16.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/14

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 19 December 2017 — Anke Hartog v British Airways plc
   (Case C-711/17)
   (2018/C 134/18)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Hamburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Anke Hartog

      Defendant: British Airways plc

      Question referred

   Must the condition laid down in Article 3(2)(a) for the applicability of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (1) be interpreted as meaning that passengers, who have a confirmed reservation, have ‘present[ed] themselves for check-in’ if, where no time is indicated, they have joined the queue for the check-in desks used by the air carrier for the check-in in question no later than 45 minutes before the published departure time?

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.


title: Case T-105/18: Action brought on 22 February 2018 — Deray v EUIPO — Charles Claire (LILI LA TIGRESSE)

text:
               16.4.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/37

         Action brought on 22 February 2018 — Deray v EUIPO — Charles Claire (LILI LA TIGRESSE)
   (Case T-105/18)
   (2018/C 134/53)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: André Deray (Bry-sur-Marne, France) (represented by: S. Santos Rodríguez, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Charles Claire LLP (Weybridge Surrey, United Kingdom)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark LILI LA TIGRESSE — Application for registration No 015 064 462

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 December 2017 in Case R 1244/2017-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs;

               —

               order EUIPO and Charles Claire LLP to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the administrative proceedings before EUIPO.

      Plea in law

               —

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